How the frick is this still the best modern Assassins Creed game 5 years later? It had a good foundation but neither Odyssey nor Valhalla expand on it in a meaningful or even satisfying way. Why the frick did Ubisoft think making "Origins but with a bigger map" would be what people wanted out of this franchise?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
You're not allowed to talk about that game here
Bayek was a good character. Fathers are always kino. Following it up with a sibling dispute and then a schizo viking just doesn't work
Bayek and his friend are such homies
I just finished it a couple of weeks ago, loved it.
Odyssey and Valhalla are both on sale for like 60% off at the moment, are either of them worth it?
I reckon Odyssey will probably hit Game Pass at some point this year though.
If you liked the gameplay and setting, Odyssey is worth it for essentially being more of the same.
Valhalla isn't worth it. I've 100%d nearly every AC game going all the way back to AC2. I couldn't even get through the main questline for that game. Too many design decisions that just fell flat and a completely forgettable story.
This, the main story is literally go raid 7 cities and there is ZERO difference between them it's like the first AC game where you have to assasinate 7 guys and that sit
Odyssey is made out of 90% of cut and paste assets and maps from Origins with half baked "improvements" to combat, gear and dialogue options. It honestly feels like they tried combining the worst aspects of Witcher 3 and Destiny 2.
Valhalla feels like it was made on Odyssey's foundation but removes or tries to simplify those "improvements" to the point where it just feels like a mobile game that plays itself. It also tries to reintroduce the social stealth aspect from older games but, like Odyssey, it ends up half baked and not worth the playstyle. Overall it tries to play it safe but is really boring as shit and twice the length of Odyssey.
Don't even ask about the story, it's a fricking mess and retcons the shit out of everything that came before those games, including aspects of Origins itself.
If you can find them for 10 dollars or less I'd say give them a shot but paying more than that on either titles is a fricking scam.
Odyssey isn't an AC game, it's basically a fantasy game for 99% of it and it makes being able to use all the mechanics of the game (Melee, assassination, and bows) at the same time virtually impossible unless you run specific builds. It has an extremely bloated map full of more copy and paste than any AC game before it, the level scaling is irritating, the Adrestia is one of the weakest ships in the series even weaker than Adewale's Experto Crede, the vast majority of characters are completely underdeveloped, the MC is terrible and shifts their beliefs and personality on a dime, the story is all over the place and you can end up doing content you were meant to do later earlier leading to spoilers, virtually none of your choices matter, and after like maybe 10 hours it'll start wearing you down. The game doesn't even really start until you're level 45ish.
Valhalla is a mess, the main character and story are easily the worst of the series, there are virtually no likable characters, a lot of the good things from Odyssey were removed or made more annoying, it has more bugs than Unity and patches randomly introduce new bugs when fixing older ones that can softlock you (They still haven't fixed a duplicate tattoo bug in the DLC, Vagn still sells duplicate equips at his store if you upgraded the original you bought, and it took them like half a month to fix the Ragnarok DLC wiping everything your character had equipped), and the combat is a complete joke with you getting so laughably overpowered that throwing on every single detriment you possible can still makes you more of a demigod than Odyssey.
On the plus side the maps are pretty decent, the DLC was pretty fun especially Siege of Paris, they keep patching new content in (Even though they keep harping on River Raids which are awful), it felt like there was more variety compared to Odyssey, and the combat is way more fun and fluid than Odyssey despite how easy it becomes.
Not reading all that shit homie.
Odyssey fantasy RPG, horribly balanced gameplay, underdeveloped and bipolar characters, extremely padded with copy and paste.
Valhalla fixes most issues but super easy game, some of the worst characters and story in the series, good DLC, copy and paste is there but not as bad and in smaller chunks.
Valhalla is easily the worst of the 3 open world AC games and that's not even up for debate. It has the most bloat, the worst characters / story and the worst gameplay out of the 3.
One thing Valhalla personally did better for me was taking a step back from essentially being a looter prostitute into manageable gear count that you upgrade instead.
>Odyssey isn't an AC game, it's basically a fantasy game for 99% of it
Yeah but so was Origins. If someone liked Origins, they'd like Odyssey as well. They are very competently made Witcher 3 clones. I personally even prefer both Origins and Odyssey to Witcher 3 as far as open world action RPGs go. They have more interesting settings, better fleshed out stories and much better combat.
I liked Origins and fricking hated Odyssey
>They are very competently made Witcher 3 clones
comparing Witcher 3 to Odyssey is like comparing a 16th century stone statue to a 3d printed copy of it
It's like comparing shit in a candy wrap to actual shit. Yea it can fool you into thinking it's "good" but if you look closer you'll see both of them are shit
shut the frick up Ganker
I dunno, I think the ancient greece setting of Odyssey is way more interesting than the generic medieval fantasy world of Witcher 3. And gameplay wise, Odyssey easily wins for me as well. Much smoother, more fluid and responsive combat system. I can see why people might prefer Witcher 3 for the story, the characters and the quest design, but as a whole package, I think Odyssey is a better game.
No, Origins at the very least tried to be an AC game and cared about trying to set up some decent characters and a story. Odyssey punishes you for going Assassin unless you plan on running away from melee combat when Hero Strike is on cooldown to actually deal your damage. I loved Origins and hate Odyssey despite dumping over like 200 hours into Odyssey.
Odyssey has no Memory Corridors, it doesn't even pretend like the MC cares about killing the people they kill, it has side quests that feel unrewarding because almost none of your choices matter and the only thing that has any relation to the bigger AC picture are the myths, the MC themselves is completely bipolar, there's no black and white arguments and canonically Kass lets Aspasia go anyway making the entire hunt pointless, your relationships don't matter, Barnabas is the only character remotely developed and he's developed far more than the Eagle Bearer by a country miles, you are invulnerable to fall damage once you hit 20, being able to climb anything makes parkour basically pointless now, and there is zero mystery or intrigue with the Cult of Kosmos because 95% of the members have the character development of a randomly generated mercenary because the only character they have is in the tiny blurb they have.
>and the worst gameplay out of the 3.
Odyssey by default has the worse gameplay because of the damage split between Assassin/Warrior/Hunter. The fact that the bow isn't even viable unless you pump it or run 100% crit is pure lunacy and the fact that you can't assassinate unless you pump Assassin or 100% crit is even stupider.
I also have to disagree with the open world feeling worse because I hated exploring in Odyssey but Valhalla was at least interesting and mixed things up with the maps being introduced to you.
Yes, if you want more Origins, play Odyssey, and if you want even more, play Valhalla.
Ignore the shitpickers, they hate just to hate.
>Ignore the gays who put hours into those games, they hate just to hate
ok shill
Not sure what to tell you, but the vast majority of people who enjoyed Origins will also enjoy Odyssey. The games simply aren't different enough for most people who play them to have 2 completely different reaction towards them. In many ways, Origins was a solid proof of concept that was fully fleshed out in Odyssey.
>>that was fully fleshed out in Odyssey.
>Five armor pieces now on top of your bow and two weapons when all you needed was your weapon, your shield, and your bow in Origins.
>Upgrading damage in Origins was as simple as just getting some crafting mats which were plentiful and upgrading once whereas Odyssey requires Diablo Loot and prayers.
You didn't even need to take the Hidden Blade past level 8 unless you were doing the DLC, and even if you were doing the DLC there is no point to a level 12+ Hidden Blade unless you want to run the Trial of the Gods because there isn't a single enemy a level 12 HB can't one-shot outside of that.
>Damage split into Assassin/Warrior/Bow means you have to specialize into one and the other two massively suffer to the point that if you don't spec into Assassin you literally can't even kill anything that's not a garbage tier mook even when using Critical Assassinate.
Meanwhile Origins lets you use all three without issue.
>Randomized stats now means you have to pray for good pieces when Origins had set stats for weapons.
>Origins still had you being unable to climb certain objects and still needing footholds while Odyssey just lets you climb everything possible.
>Fall damage matters because humans can die from minor falls just like in Origins while Odyssey arbitrarily lets you jump off of mountains and take no damage just because you hit level 20.
>The Adrestia is actually WORSE than Aya's ship because it has no cannonball equivalent and everything leveled with you in Odyssey making all your gains pointless.
>Shields don't even exist in a setting based entirely around shields being super important, you just parry with a spear tip instead.
>Forces level scaling on your ass when Origins had it turned off by default or you could turn it off, and if you want to do it in Odyssey you will simply turn on easy mode because the game isn't balanced around you even being 1 level ahead of your enemies.
Did we play the same games here?
>Making the same post twice in a thread
tripgays really are autistic
You pretty much summed up my gripes with odyssey, had to dump so many skill points in critical assassinate just to play as an assassin also
>99 is the level cap
Thats fricking ridiciolous, origins had a reasonable one at least
>Assassin/Warrior/Bow
I still don't understand who though that was a good design decision.
they made a huge mistake the moment hard figures started deciding what to wear. unity was already pushing it with vague bars affecting your damage, health, etc bonus, but bonuses was when min-maxing already crept in.
Unity's problem was the fact of there not being an obvious way of playing it "right" in terms of progression. If you're paying the game like a normal persona in you were in three star gear almost immediately.
Unity can be beaten in default armour and zero upgrades. Syndicate and everything after it cannot because they will gate you. Unity was the last AC game.
>Syndicate and everything after it cannot because they will gate you
Oh shit, really?
Actually Syndicate can but the others definitely can't
it made itemization easier and they really really wanted to make a new action rpg series, but had to keep the ac name for brand reasons
odyssey is worse because it didn't build up from origins, it was a really solid foundation squandered and left to decay
which mirrors egypt, so kino i guess
Yes, it's basically more of the same
I'm playing Odyssey now after finishing Origins and it's just as much fun
Plus Kassandra is cute
Odyssey is bloated but the map and setting are absolutely beautiful. It's not my favorite AC game by any means but it's fun in it's own right, especially if you loved Origins.
Just give us a game with Unity's parkour and customization mixed with an expanded
version of Brotherhood's recruit system.
Odyssey yes. Valhalla is still overpriced.
>Valhalla is still overpriced.
Is £23.99 too much for Valhalla for the base game?
It's on sale on the Microsoft store.
valhalla SUCKS
the running speed is abismaly slow. you press the run button and you barely feel any difference. everything is slower. aiming sucks too, there's a MASSIVE deadzone if you're using a controller, basically unplayable
the graphics suck too. the world is dull and lifeless. origins, despite being older, feels livelier and more pleasant to look at
the sand physics alone man
I legitimately don't understand why Valhalla is so cumbersome when it movement. Did they want to emulate wearing heavy armor? It's THE worst in the series in the aspect that's basically taken a nosedive since Unity.
They downgraded the graphics because people couldn't run it for shit same with origins.
Odyssey is literally Witcher 3 part 2, I'm talking of course about game mechanic and feel
oddessey + dlc is like 200h of story content, took me like 9 months to finish, insane
the dlc alone is like like 3 seperate games worth of content
Be honest: was it worth it?
ye, memorable experience
That's not Black Flag.
you're right, it's almost 9 years old
It's the same game except origins has trash half-assed RPG mechanics which makes it shit by default.
the only things Black Flag and Origins have in common is that both were made by a rapist
I will now buy your game
That's not Black Flag.
i played odyssey because i liked the setting. no idea why would anyone play these games outside of that
Bayek, unlike most of the other Assassins wasn't cringe le funny guy, but more serious and an actual father, while still having subtle humor.
I liked Unity and Black Flag. Haven't played Valhalla.
I just want them to remove the modern day and VR shit for the next games and stop pretending anyone actually cares about it. Go harder on the assassin vs templar rivalry or get rid of it altogether.
Modern day shit died with Desmond, they haven't had a good idea of what to do with it ever since then.
The Ubisoft office saga was alright but just can't compare.
They've kinda been getting their shit together with the new games but I fear it will all be wasted or dragged on again with the multiplayer live service game they're working on
>and stop pretending anyone actually cares about it
They're not pretending. When it took a back seat in Unity and Syndicate people were fuming that they wanted it back. The people who actually complain about the Animus and modern day are the minority, most people want that and people constantly complain when it's not there. They even outright said in their GDC talk about how the brand works is that it's just as important as the past in terms of content which is why they constantly have comics and novels coming out specifically tailored towards it and why the new trilogy heavily focused on Layla and is now damage controlling because they hate Layla as a character and just want someone better.
>I just want them to remove the modern day and VR shit for the next games
>Go harder on the assassin vs templar rivalry or get rid of it altogether
that's basically what they did with Syndicate and Odyssey and they're some of the worst games in the franchise
none of those games flaws have anything whatsoever to do with them not having the modern day animus sequence shit in them.
no but it's weird that it happened twice
The soundtrack's the only good things about these games
why does Valhalla's ost feel like it was made for a final entry in a series more than 3's soundtrack? It has a very weird somber quality to it
They know the next game is a reboot with 10x more microtransactions, skins and even nfts so they wanted to give it a funeral
Because Valhalla is set in a post apocalyptic England, where the Vikings were literally destroying the Anglo Saxon's world
It's awfully boring thanks to the leveling system forcing you to do boring side quest unless you enjoy having NPCs break out of your out of stealth attacks.
Levels have no place in a stealth game.
It has the most shallow story and characters out of any AC game and the game boils down to grinding through endless outposts over and over again. It's literal shit.
What's the consensus on the mytholgy dlc from Odyssey and Valhalla?
The Origins one was pretty cool
Elysium as an area is pretty good but the Wings of Hermes make some of the areas kind of suck to traverse. The enemies are pure damage sponges even with a 100% crit build so I can only imagine how they handle on less specialized builds. The Adonis/Aphrodite thing wasn't really that interesting for me personally.
Hades is complete garbage. Terrible design, terrible aesthetics, Hades himself just sucks all DLC, and his boss fight isn't really fun. The best parts are two great side quests and the boss fight in the intro.
Atlantis is the standout. The map is awesome with tons of verticality and there's only a couple Wings of Hermes to contend with. There's Isu lore thrown around. The final boss is great. Enemies are still tanks but the armor they drop is neat.
The Layla story throughout all of it is pure garbage and character assassinates someone who has been built up to be the Assassin's #1 enemy up until that point.
I don't have Ragnarok because it's still barely on sale, but I've heard it's underwhelming, short, doesn't really add much to Odin's story, and is only worth it if you want to mess around with new broken abilities and two higher armor/weapon tiers to break an already easy game into dust.
Loved oddysey just because of the setting, story was shit
Yeah, most of Odyssey's locations were beautiful
the mediterranean is quite beautiful. Shame greek economy sucks
Whens Vallhala coming to steam
>download Ubisoft's Annual Financial Report
>CTRL+F "divers"
>Result: 108 instance(s)
>in a 352 pages long document
Please put some effort into your bait next time.
>ass creed games
thats pretty low barrier
also, did it have shop? If dont heres your answer.
I tried to 100% Valhalla and ended up wanting to kill myself from boredom. It's already pretty zzzzzzzzzz tier but there's so much "treasure" to find which is just useless resources. Don't even think I finished the story I just dropped it. I thought odyssey was bad to 100% but it has nothing on Valhalla.
The treasure and side objectives are fine in Valhalla, they're at least interesting. The River Raid grind is where you want to die. It's literally like 60 hours of running the same six maps (Originally 3) to get all of Vagns equips. I'm still one run short of owning everything and I want to die every time I speak to that man.
This game would be 100% better without the wife. She steals your protagonism in the end because it's the current year so the ending makes you not want to play it anymore. Bayek as a single father trying to avenge his son also works better.
No, it's because legendary female Egyptian assassin was canon back in AC 2
Ubi was too scared to have a female MC which is why they do they make it optional in Odysesy and Valhalla even though female is canon
how is female canon in odyssey and vallhall?
because its 2022 diversity anon
Yeah im liking the game so far but the modern dykes and the wife sucks man.
I just went through the ng+ as fast as possible for the costume. The ending sort of tainted the whole game for me. The DLC with the mythology stuff is pretty cool though
Is rouge any good? Thats one I didnt get a chance to play on release.
TL;DR, no not really but if you want to sail around some more it's fine.
Story? No, one of the worst and makes no sense. It also just swaps Assassins to comical bad guys who refuse to talk about anything and makes the Templars God's chosen ones sent down from Heaven itself to raise the pitiful humankind from the ground.
Characters? Only Shay, Haytham, and Monroe have any character development with Shay barely being a character, Haytham not acting like the Haytham from 3 despite this taking place after the intro cutscene of 3, and Monroe being effectively the most perfect man to ever perfect and there's no way you could hate him.
Modern Day? Yeah, it's alright. A bit short though.
Setting? Fantastic.
Gameplay?
General exploration and combat is the same as BF except you have a super OP rifle.
Ship combat's a bit different due to the Puckle Gun (Feels a bit weaker than the swivel personally) and the oil slicks (Don't care for them, felt weaker than oil barrels) but otherwise they have some of the best legendary ship battles despite the Morrigan feeling weaker than the Jackdaw overall.
No but I hear it's shorter than most
Rogue's problem is it basically exists only so last fives minutes can lead into Unity.
valhalla was the only game out of the 3 rpg games that felt like a chore to finish to me. i put over 200 hours into odyssey without even noticing, and the 80 hours i put into valhalla felt excruciatingly drawn out.
>Uses BCE whenever referencing the date in game.
Dropped
I played Origins AFTER Odyssey, it felt like a step down to me
What is ultimately the most enjoyable way to play it? Last time I checked it was a shitty grindfest with leveling your character. Is there a way to disable that bullshit so it's more like older games?
I mean, if you want to make the game shorter, you could just set it to easy difficulty and turn off level scaling. It would make the game extremely boring but it's on you
Odyssey was better
So which of the 3 rumored settings do you anons want the most
Persia, Japan, or Aztec?
Aztec, but entire gameplay is focused around human sacrifice including woman and kids.
Persia.
Ghost of Sushima is the Assasin's Creed Chinaman we never got.
tsushima was already miles better than whatever ubisoft could cook up for AC japan. perisa would be boring. aztec is a criminally underused setting in games, it would be the smart choice.
If it were in Persia, it would just be a worse Prince of Persia. If it were Japan, it would be a worse Tenshu. Aztec it is, and a reference to Chel and El Dorado would be great.
Baghdad/Persia
Aztec and Japan would 100% stray too far into fantasy
why do people want a grounded AC when the game has already jumped the shark multiple times? they're obviously not going to scale back the isu shit.
I meant more architecture, culture and the "world building" part
I don't think we know enough about Aztecs to make a big game out of them
And Japanese historical fiction is influenced way to much by Jap media which glamorises it and westerners not knowing the actual timeline
e.g samurai were not around at the same time as European knights and their "armour" looked like shit
>I don't think we know enough about Aztecs to make a big game out of them
We do, people drastically underestimate the amount of information we have
What we have very few surviving totally prehispanic texts: There's 4 maya books (thousands of stone inscriptions, though, but these are ain a very "On X day Y happened" dry format), a dozen or so from Central Mexico, most of which are arguably Aztec in a loose sense, and like 8 Mixtec ones, and that's it. But when you include the texts written by Mesoamerican nobles, scribes, etc during the early colonial period within the century or so of Spanish contact, or by Spanish friars working with them, then there's signficantly more sources, especially for the Aztec, since Spain basically inherited their political infrastructure
Sahagun's history for instance is like 2000+ pages of detailed info on daily life, government, culture, and general society; from judicial systems to merchantry to medicine to figures of speech, while Duran's history is a similar work but detailing their history, down to specific statements made by specific political officials, see pic. (tho these are best seen as romanticized histrory/legend, and there's some distortion from being made under spanish oversight) There's been entire books written about specific political officials, like "Allure of Nezahualcoyotl" and "Tlaclelel remembered", compilations of poetry, etc. There's some documents like this (though not as many or as in depth)( on the Maya, to a lesser extent the Zapotec, Mixtec, etc as well
It's really only for other civilizations where there's almost nothing, with only single inscriptions or only 1-2 colonial period documents, like the Purepecha (the third largest state in the Americas after the Inca and Aztec) have the Relación de Michoacán, and then a few Relacion de Geograficas for some specific towns and that's mostly it, let alone stuff like the Zoque, Mixe, Chinantec, etc but even then archaeology can tell a lot
That's interesting but it is pre-colonial info that I'm interested in, I think the further away you get from the event/time period the less reliable the account becomes and some history is just lost
idk I just like my neat western centric time periods
Obviously, but that's largerly applicable to a lot of Eurasian history too: A lot of sources on say Greek history were written centuries after the fact. In fact i've outright seen the claim that there's actually more surviving works in Nahuatl/Aztec by known specific Nahua/Aztec authors then there are ancient greek ones.
In the grand scheme of things, stuff being written in the late 1500s or early 1600s describing events from the 1400s really isn't that bad as far as the time gap goes, but yes, time and memory distortion, romanticization, and bias is an issue, especially since such sources are written under Spanish superivision, but it's still information being recorded by people or people being consulted who were directly alive during the prehispanic period.
And to be clear, the information i'm talking about IS about prehispanic history and society, i'm not referring to sources written about early colional society/history
dont care isnt Olmec(a) get it out of here
wait 200 years for machine learning to decipher the cascajal block
I firmly believe Ubisoft will use Japan only as a last resort. They won't make an AC there until they have to make a double or nothing move to save the company. At this rate, the time might come sooner than later.
This kills the Ubishits.
when people stopped buying copy-paste AC games ubishit decided to finally make a new game, thus we have AC:Origins
did they made new games afterwards? no, they 'll just keep on copy-pasting AC:Origins as long as morons buy it
also, AC:Origins is soulless piece of shit:
>bayek doesn't give a frick about his son death, he is happy all the time so why the frick should i give a frick?
>whole map is question mark hell, all of them boring
>all the side quests are based on go there, kill that without any reason and come back
>leveling system that forces me to do shitty side quests if i want to push main plot foward
Ubishit took one of best settings possible and decided to butcher it
... did we play the same game? the whole plot is bayek hard coping
>Question mark hell
Do tell me whats wrong with that oh great homosexual
i cant believe people are still buying this shit. i lost interest half way through the first game
The last AC game worth anything at all was Unity, despite all its jank. The RPGs are fricking atrocious for so many reasons I can't even list them all
valhalla is so bad
odyssey is 5/10 origins 7.5/10
it gets downgraded after origins a lot
I enjoyed both Origin and Odyssey.
I dropped Vallhala pretty early on, I just didn't like it for some reason.
How long until the inevitable reboot?
AC 1 remaster with the current AC engine.... or give me AC 4 with the current AC engine i beg
Frick no. They basically killed the parkour system after Unity where it peaked. Smooth brains just couldn't into parkour up and down commands.
>the reason all the assassins used to lose a finger is because of bayek's dumb mistake
kek
Though I enjoyed AC:O like 4 years ago, the grind burned me out by the time Bayek became Cleopatra's Medjay. I always wanted to return and seeing how much later instalments regressed replaying Origins from scratch might be a wisest investment. Is there any disadvantage of focusing strictly on the MQ? Or should I incorporate side-quests too but avoid exploration and chest-hunting? Honestly, I don't remember what was the most grindy part of the game.
If you go straight for the main quest and nothing else the game will feel harder as you progress because the enemies scale faster than you can level up. Though that's not necesarily a bad thing since being on level makes the game too easy imo.
Aren't you pretty much hard-locked from some (main) content if you're under levelled, as enemies above your level by 2 or 3 can one-shot you while you deal next to no damage? Or was that another AC?
I wish there was literally any other dev making histocial themepark games because Ubisoft is fricking dogshit.
>forced leveling/side quests to progress main story which are sleep inducing
>literal eurojank tier combat with a dogshit parry system
>quest design is absolute garbage
>weapons are just different skins of the same 5 weapons
Pretty open world tho. I guess for some people on here all they wanted to do is just ride around Egypt and I can't blame them for that.
All i remember from Origins is that it felt really short compared to any other asscred game.
Setting carries it, one of the most kino civilization with one of the most kino time period. Who gives a frick about penopelan greeks and viking larpers
>Replaying Origins: Fun
>Relplaying Odyssey: Frick no
Odyssey is too long for its own good
like AC:O FF15 event
I wonder how a such vid would look like for nu-ACs: