1 Likes/11 Replies/334 ViewsOriginal poster LucaAnonim 5 posts
I hate the new RPG style! I m an old fan. I ve buyed Valhalla just because I hoped it will be a change in good but if you will do another RPG you will lose the big fans. The ones who buyed all the games, and suported you! Don t sell the soul of AC.
Lysvander 68 posts
@lucaanonim This is difficult. "The internet" complained AC was always the same, so they changed it - and now complaints follow it's not AC anymore.
You can't please everybody.
I, to enjoyed the earlier AC games, and whilst i don't mind change - they should have changed the name and come with a new IP, because it's no longer Assassins Creed. But what do i know.
SicariusXXVII 26 posts
The problem is not about being RPG or not, it's about the main hero not being an Assassin, and the story not being about Assassins vs Templars. Stealth is too optional and the game kind of forces you to messy open combat. These issues have nothing to do with it being RPG.
Fortunately, Siege of Paris DLC seems to be a step in the right direction.
TheNorfolkian 530 posts
@Lysvander @Garbo3 @SicariusXXVII I agree with y’all, especially since it’s not just Valhalla, but Origins and Odyssey as well. Ubisoft really stretched the notion of Bayek being the originator of what would become the Order of the Assassins. He was a Medjay first and last... his interests never went beyond protecting Egypt from tyranny and oppression. And yet, this whole time it was really Aya who turned out to be the real progenitor by expanding the reach of the Hidden Ones and formalizing the ‘creed’. Like... what’s up with that? We should have always had a sequel game that followed Aya—excuse me, Amunet—in her later years. Instead we got a blast to the past with Odyssey, where the protagonist is really just a placeholder for delving into Isu lore. And Eivor does things a Hidden One does, but is not a Hidden One by ideological belief and choice.
Ubisoft has put enough into these three games to connect them to the AC universe, but if they were going to have this all under a different title, what could that be?
MissM16 213 posts
I've been playing AC since the first one with Altair so I understand how you feel. Both Origins and Odyssey were set prior to the Creed's exitance though so it makes sense for them not to "feel" like old AC games. We were not assassins because they didn't exist yet.
However, I do think both games were perfectly tied to the AC universe. Like @thenorfolkian said, Odyssey with Isu lore and ancestral ties to Origins and the birth of AC.
I don't know what to think about Valhalla yet though. Maybe we will have some cognizance or some kind of an ah-ha moment in upcoming content or in the next game so I will refrain from judgement... for now.
It might, possibly, maybe, perhaps lol be meant to make the MD portion a thing again? If such is the case, that intro was weak imo. Maybe they just wanted to make a Viking game so yeah, should've just made one and leave AC alone.
Sam_Boo26 160 posts
I love the new RPG side of the most recent games, but I still think the Assassins/Hidden Ones should play a more important part in the story than what they have in Valhalla.
ImaginaryRuins 418 posts
Another typical case of old fans vs. newer fans. Like what Lysvander said, you just can't please everybody, and if people are bound to complain anyway and if I were the developer, then I would rather follow my heart and take AC to the direction I see fit and ignore the complaints.
Like SicariusXXVII said, the real problem is not the RPG elements - it is the Assassin-Templar war and the modern line are no longer emphasized. From AC1 to AC3 we had a very clear goal - using the Animus to gain the legendary assassins' skills through the Bleeding Effect to stop the Templars from eliminating the few Assassins left AND to save the world from another destruction in 2012. But now this kind of sense of purpose is lost in the more modern games. Not just that, from AC1 to 3, we kept seeing the same few characters: Desmond, Lucy, Rebecca, and Shaun - we knew who they were and bonded with them. But later games spend much less time developing the modern characters, and before we learnt about them, they were gone.
I do hope future AC games could address these two problems.
TheNorfolkian 530 posts
@imaginaryruins More than any other character, Shaun is the biggest constant. He’s the one giving us ‘info’ about all the historical stuff in the game. His comments on different beers during the Victorian age in AC Syndicate was some of the funniest reading I had ever seen in any game. No matter what happens in the future of AC, I have a good feeling Shaun is going to be the in-game vehicle for Ubisoft’s history lessons (excluding the Discovery Tours).
MissM16 213 posts
That's exactly it. I'm one of the old players who completely lost interest in the MD story and stopped paying attention once they killed off Desmond : /
I'm suspecting Valhalla might be meant to make MD great again now that we have a real assassin (with an Isu bloodline no less) at the helm. What this has to do with Eivor and Vikings though... I have no idea. The AC part seems like an afterthought or a side quest in this game.
I'm still waiting to have an epiphany like we did in Origins and Odyssey tying Eivor to the AC universe.
Karmachaositgp 96 posts
thats where the game started to fall apart was after they killed Desmond off not that black flag wasn't good, it was or I liked it but then the modern connection failed which thats what you were, you were a modern person put into a machine aka the animus to relive ancestral memories. Not the other way around. I loved that connection before they ruined it. I was expecting a modern day build up of assassins and templars in present day which never happened but only briefly in modern segments. They ruined the stories to milk the name solely for money purposes.
I hope us og players have learned our lesson and will not give ubisoft any more money if/unless they get there **** straight.