Welcome to discussion
Raski0611 107 posts
Ubisoft made big mistake hiring the devs who created face animation and story in mass effect andromeda and put them in charge for audio and quality control in ac valhalla.
guest-udh6e0GF 2 posts
I agree this is an absolute horrible game in general and probably the worst in the series, full of bugs to the point it's not fun to play at all, the map and scenery is extremely boring, gameplay action is horrible the fighting is horrible the story is horrible the side missions are horrible. Anyone who says they enjoy this game I think are in denial because they sont want to admit they just wasted atleast 60$
Compared to odyssey it is an embarrassment in every aspect, lol even just the climbing is garbage
@guest-udh6e0gf Can't share your opinion.
Landscapes are awesome, I love the fighting, Parkour oppurtunities are back (mechanics are broken since Origins and still not fixed), story is extremly superior to Odysseys. I had to stop playing Odyssey and come back a year later to finish it. Enjoyed Valhalla from beginning to end. Side missions are nearly non existant but what's there is way better than anything you can find in Odyssey. (Randvi date, Petra mushroom trip etc., side quest unlocking "Mans best friend" ability)
I am so much looking forward for the DLCs
Edit: The problem at hand is more that you can't imagine that other people enjoy the game. This is a you problem.
@souldrinkerlp gotta disagree with you there.
Story falls short in Vahalla. It's disappointing and ends on such a anti-climax. Especially the historical ending.
I felt that Odyssey's ending (not including dlc) was far more satisfying and enjoyable and made a lot more sense. Vahalla literally ends before a massive event happens that changes the entire political structure of England-game wise it would have been a good place to end it as it set up a status quo in England that lasted for years. Odyssey's main story when there was peace for a few years between Athens and sparta, so it made sense for the narrative to end there. I've not been invested in the modern story of assassin creed for a while, but still didn't really like how they ended it.
Obviously this does come down to opinion, but just narrative-wise and historically, where it ends does not make sense nor is it satisfying
Some of the side quests in vahalla aren't great, besides a few exceptions.
I do enjoy the game, but it needs a lot of work and it needs improvement.
@max18400 There are only 5 side quests in total...
And story isn't just about the ending. The ending is in modern time. The story started with Layla going into the animus spoiler
Compare it to AC2. Ezios story wasn't finished obviously. Same with Altair in AC1. The reason why we go back in history isn't to get a satisfactory historical ending but to get something in modern time we expect there to be.
Of course I would wish for a second game with Eivor or a 2nd Season Pass. I like Eivor. But I don't need to see where his/her story ends to be satisfied. As the story is connected and that's exactly what I expect from an AC game. I would be fine with "the Ezio Treatment" for Eivor.
@souldrinkerlp only 5 exactly and I found myself rushing 3 of them. Besides a couple of ones, didn't find them too engaging.
To be fair, I appreciate a lot of people liked how the modern day arc ended, but personally I really didn't like it. At all. I could go into why, but it's never been an aspect of the series I've cared about. But that said, I did clearly say I wasn't invested in the modern day story at all. The end to Eivor's story in Chippenham (after Norway) is the ending that grated on me the most for the reasons I've already said.
@souldrinkerlp but then again, I disagree with you. Back with the Ezio trilogy, it was a very different story. Modern day was more engaging, and each game, Ezio's stories ended in a full arc. AC 2, he had defeated rodrigo and saw the futility in his vengeance--satisfying place for his personal story to end. AC brotherhood, ended with Ezio fully embracing his role as a leader, killing the antagonist and ending with a satisfactory ending for Ezio in that story. Revelations is the definitive end to Ezio's story, again seeing he had played his part and it was time to retire-again a satisfying end. Those games are like Ezio's story is a burger. The modern day complimented it and added to it, the salad of a burger for example. For example, when a new ac is advertised, it isn't the modern day that front and center, it's the historical narrative. The modern story is just an extra. A reason they can explore different historical settings.
Eivor's story is just meh. Especially when they have no investment in the conflict of assassin vs templars (or hidden ones vs the order). Compare this to Ezio's trilogy, its of even Odyssey's story, they had a direct motive and ambition to play their parts in that overarcing war. Also, Eivor ends as a political leader within the viking occupied area of England, and the last missions he is directly involved with trying to complete the conquest of England. That it ends before that war is finished is incredibly anti climatic. If they ended it with the battle of Edington, it always the settlement to be more of less secure and also would have paved the way for the DLCs to Ireland and Frankia.
@max18400 The personal Eivor story arc basically begins with Sigurd rescueing Eivor and ends with Eivor rescueing Sigurd. What happens after the last Modern Day section is just an epilogue. Mainly to finish off the Order and Settlement story.
I feel the personal ending for Eivor was satisfactory. I wanted to play more Ezio and in Rome after AC2. They went that way with Brotherhood. So I felt like the story wasn't finished yet too with AC2.
I felt the same with nearly every AC game. They could all continue. Especially Origins. Many people would have loved a second game with Bayek.
And yea, I am all for Eivor getting the Ezio Treatment (getting sequels)
@souldrinkerlp I understand what you're saying, but that epilogue was one of the best bits of gameplay I felt. I was thinking through it thinking, oh my god, they're going to end at Edington, that's perfect. Then they just didn't. The event they end on wasn't even historically a battle. The sack of Chippenham, Alfred had very few supporters with him and fled. The vikings under Guthrum then occupied Chippenham until they were defeated at Edington. They could have ended with the battle of Edington, where potentially Eivor could have lost a lot of friends and allies, meant you could replay in some areas and almost do a conquest/major conquest battles to retake them. It would have been a darker end, but always would have been a secure ending as it essentially created a form of peace between the settled vikings and Anglo-Saxons and would have allowed Eivor to return to Raventhorpe.
I don't think they'll do another game with Eivor to continue their story. It's plausable, but I don't think it's likely, especially with one DLC (Paris) being on a set date years after the main campaign ends
@max18400 They could do a 2nd season pass And maybe it's just bugged. Considering you can only complete the game 94%. Something IS missing in the game currently. Either it was cut or it is bugged. The seer also foreshadows that the village will burn and people will die if Eivor continues. So maybe it will come with a free update later?
@souldrinkerlp can only hope. I'm an a huge history nerd, especially on the viking age. I almost did a PhD on it (until I found out there was no funding at the moment) so I was always going to be a bit of a stickler with it, but I was just disappointed.
We can only hope that's the plan
@max18400 But you have to be honest here. AC2 didn't had a huge historical story. The history was just "existing" basically. It conveniently helped the plot sometimes etc. but it wasn't the main focus. Same basically with Black Flag. It only showed a very narrow perspective of pirate history (mostly Blackbeard and his crew)
You could basically make 4-5 games like Black Flag to tell the whole story of things happening during that age.
I feel like AC Valhalla does tell us way more history than AC2 did tbh. Which is why I want a second season pass with at least 1 DLC in England tbh. I want MORE of it because it is so good. I want them to tell me more of this because they delivered a very interesting story. (I read most of the actual history during AC Valhalla by now and they did not stick 100% to the actual history but this fits AC because it is telling "the real history" and not the one we believe in today because it is the most likely version etc.)
So if they make a poll about second season and having more England stuff count me in
They could never make any history game 100% historically accurate. It would have a too niche audience. All the games have simplified so many aspects to make when qualify as a video game l: and also to make it appropriate for a modern audience.
That said, the AC games should, and for the most part, do loosely follow history. Ezio and black flag did portray some really great historical events, but for the most part were on the fringes of the historical periods (AKA not around a major historical event), whereas the last 3 games are very closely linked. For example, origins showing the assassination of Caesar,or Odyssey's Athenien plague.
I hope they add it in as the free dlc they're releasing later this month. Would make sense to (the real sack of Chippenham happened around Christmas/new year877/878, and the battle of Edington was spring 878)
Assassinofcake 43 posts
the game is unfinished and unpolished, but your points arent valid the draw distance was even worst in odyssey, i would literaly be standing on a stone and the textures would not appear, i have that problem in valhalla but its less frequent, and the major problem that you point is not mutch of the draw distance but more of the bright color low polly model of the grass, sometimes you are justa riding and they pop up florecentlly.
the water is amazing though i find problems with the colision in low docks and ice, sometimes its too green but i grew fond of it
the mechanics apart from parkour arent bad
textures, sound world design and story are amazing
the inventory is badly optimized and needs a sorting feature
and i have to say i miss the color in the map
the game has a lot of bugs, and i mean a lot,
it also looks that the side content is going to be released as free seasonal dlc... transmog, avange player, replayable content, more gear etc will be added.
i want also to point that this is not odysseys sequel, its valhallas sequel, it was made from it with the same team, and it is not an rpg
Crucco88 15 posts
They have released an open beta basically. The amount of bugs and glitches is proportional to the level of approximation this game has been prepared.
I'll park the game until becomes playable.
dubbillionaire 9 posts
I think they did it this way for immersion. It was rather cheesy to have him mark every enemy in a fort easily without any real effort. The focus is more on scouting personal surroundings. I'm not sure I like it this way but if you choose to immerse yourself into the game then it may be fun trying to find paths you cannot see on your own. Either way it is gameified because how the hell is the bird gonna tell you there's 22 enemies and all their positions anyways lol
ShadowWraith11 1 posts
How do I start a class action against Ubisoft. Theyve told me they are aware of the bug in Lundun stopping the story and "sorry for the inconvenience"
No.im not taking that , you've taken my money and given me an incomplete and literally broken game.. I can't do the main point of a game... The story..
Propheticus 1 posts
I've played AC:Valhalla for 10h now and arrived in England. I came to the conclusion something is wrong with the graphics. The previous game (Odyssey) looked better on the same PC+resolution with settings that result in similar FPS.
I use High settings on resolution 1080p @ 100% rendering scale with motion blur off. This looks better than 1440p@70% rendering scale.
I had depth of field turned off as well, because I don't like fake focus (if my eyes go there, they focus and need to see sharp). I turned it back on (low) so that it at least hides some ugly jagged graphics on grass, trees, etc. It's not aliasing, but far more course-grained rough edges, as if (super) low res models/textures are used.
Surely it must be a bug* when a newer game like this looks so much worse than the previous titles: Odyssey and Origins. Those 2 both looked a lot better with similar or better performance.
Snow powder looks like blocks of 3x3cm (Sand/dust animation was fine in previous games, apply the same effect but in white and voilá snow), birds look like pixel drawings, Layla...wow, what happened to her? Clear downgrade from previous AC.
*: I'll be naïve in assuming no conscious decision was taken to cut corners and the game was not deliberately made to look worse by putting less time into making models and textures. That leaves graphic engine / rendering bug: are things somehow messed up in the pipeline so that they come out far lower res than they should?
It uses the same AnvilNext2.0 engine that the previous games used, so we know it can do better....