ubisoft discussions

Quick Suggestions

  • JCar4327
    701 posts

    @lemmie88 I love your comment about the game being much more enjoyable going in with less expectations.

  • Fathyk
    11 posts

    @rcdeschene i honestly don't get the complaints about the Adrestia at all. Sailing the Aegean sea island hopping is one of my fondest gaming memories ever . Loved every minute of it.

    I can understand why people may have not liked all the godly superpowers and whatnot, but what does that have to do with making the abilities in Valhalla better than they are ?

    For example, the Axe throw, besides needing a major damage buff, why not change the animation so its something that you have to connect the first strike, then if it connects you throw the two axes into the enemy point blank ? That way it can be enjoyable comboed with your Melee attacks . If its done and enemy out of range then just throw the axes.

    Same with Valkyrie strike , its a cool move in concept but so janky and cumbersome in execution that its actually a detriment to use it because its usually less effective than just continuing whatever Melee combo you were doing. I just couldn't find a way to smoothly integrate it in a natural way with the combat loop.

    Why make the charged heavy attack an ability that requires a valuable ability button slot ? It was working just fine as a charge move in the previous 2 games, how is this an improvement in anyway ?

    I even got excited when I saw that kick ability that I thought would have been as fun as rhe Sparta kick .... but nope they somehow managed to butcher that too. Its no where near as fun or as smooth as the Sparta kick. Just an awkward janky grab that completely distrubts whatever attack you were doing and a very weak kick after.

    Just a ton of examples like that. Honestly in 10 minutes I could replace the entire list of abilities and replace with them much better and more FUN ones to use , all while keeping them plausibly grounded in reality.

    Its the execution I have an issue with, not that they are more realistic





  • Fathyk
    11 posts

    @jcar4327 i was so excited about Valhalla, even though the setting to me was meh, but given how amazing Origins and Odyssey were, I admit my expectations were sky high.

    It wasn't until I saw the first combat footage where I felt something was truly wrong. It looked so janky and button mashy and awkward . A lot of people kept saying its not finished yet so I still had a positive view of the game. And of course I was so excited when I finally got to play it, but that excitement was crushed within thr first 5 hours when I realized there really was no loot drops, the combat really was as janky as it looked , and the game just seemed like they took Odyssey, stripped it down to its skeleton, and added very little to that.

    Its like there was no passion put in this game. They wanted to do the least amount of work , because balancing loot drops with meaningful RPG stats and a limited number of level ups is hard work, but making a game with +2.5 attack or evade or armor bonuses doled out over hundreds of skill points, with each really translating as something like .0001% bonus, is a lazy way of tricking the player into thinking they are regularly improving their character, when in reality those bonuses are so miniscule that the devs didn't need to balance it out at all. It's easy and way less work


  • RCDeschene
    103 posts

    @fathyk Actually, I have to disagree about the button mashing in Valhalla. This game has me using more abilities just to take down trash mobs more than with Odyssey. Valhalla is making me use my blocking and dodging reflexes more frequently, especially against the spear wielding and larger enemies. In Odyssey, I can remember waltzing into a large fortress, mowing down soldiers like it's nothing and riding out of the place in a little over a minute. I admit that is one thing I can agree with the snobs on.

    Curious, have you ever watched Fishz's videos on Odessey? He's one of the AC community's biggest criticizers. He distains the whole idea of the series turning into an RPG.

  • OfficialPapi08
    1 posts

    @fathyk dont speak like everybody should be agreeing with you. I love valhalla more than odyssey

  • pesto.
    264 posts

    I’d agree with the op though on some things.

    The central settlement idea is a bad one which adds no value in any game it’s in and makes for bad game loops which result in more fast travel than adventure, it only exists as an idea because early computer games makers sought a way to reduce load times between levels and a tiny level you revisit allowed them to keep it in memory or grab it as you closed in then do loading of the larger sections in the background while you were there, it’s not an actual good design motif in most cases, the travel loop is inherently dull, the location with its dead NPCs always saying the same things, quickly annoying. Compare the last two ac games and you in all likelihood very rarely or possibly never fast travelled despite the map sizes (except to Oikos because in another not so great move they had him in one location only), the narrative took you through the landscape.

    The longship also serves little functional purpose. Something about it makes it an inconvenience rather than aid in travel or combat. Much less effort and more interesting to just go on horseback, call in the bumbling idiots to open chests once you’ve cleared and raid location.

    To me the best parts of a game don’t feel spurious. If there’s a climbing puzzle it should be a part of a narrative rather than just side activity. That’s why the old stuff they brought back wasn’t great. Chasing things across rooftops isn’t rewarding in and of itself, it’s when it’s a part of a story that it becomes more exciting and especially if you don’t get to do it often, it opens up the possibility for memorable cinematic experiences as you get in Uncharted, but if you turn it into a side game it just kinda stinks.

    A lot of Valhalla feels spurious. There’s a lot good, but also a lot bland and “Why is Eivor doing this?”

  • AnimusLover
    264 posts

    @pesto Regarding your last paragraph... In the old games they would introduce something new as part of the story and then it would become a side mission chain for players to do as an option if they enjoyed it in the main game. That's because the devs, at the time, had the confidence that these unique mechanics were enjoyable. The reason why they can't do that with Valhalla is because they rightly predicted that many players won't/don't like the side stuff. The flying papers don't suck because they're not part of the main story. They suck because they force you to engage with the game's terrible parkour system, exposing its faults in the process. Its saving grace is that it's optional. If they made that part of the main mission, even just one mission, fans would complain.

    The question of, "why is Eivor doing this?" is precisely the reason why they did not include those side missions in the main game. Darby spoke about how out of character it would be for Eivor to be doing such stuff as a priority so they made every side activity short and sweet. Eivor has to have some downtime away from building his clan so it does make sense. Even if they found some narrative context for having Eivor chase the flying paper in a main quest line it would still look really goofy, rather than cinematic.

Suggested Topics