@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....
guest-DhN0IhSp 1 posts
Agree!!!! Combat is bad. I got the game few weeks ago and I’m very disappointed so far. It started really good then I found myself struggling with the game. Story is OK but other than that it’s bad..... you need a certain power level to raid cities and it’s not easy to reach that certain power level. Boss fights are absolutely rubbish!! I just finished one boss and that straight away you need to beat Loki...... I mean why Ubisoft putting so much pressure on the players!!! I’m done at this point. I wanted to enjoy this game so bad but I just can’t
kevinsmi97702 4 posts
The story arc is super lame... the climax... is cringe worthy it’s so ridiculous. They basically ignored the previous plot twists from the first and then took an already convoluted history and added an addition awkward twist with a character (or not character?) that was a ️Moment. Then the choice mechanics didn’t matter because for a game of 40-60 hours there are a total of 6 choices that matter. They had a character as powerful and complicated (in a good way) as kassandra and replaced her with a cheese ball Viking lady that sounds like she smoked too many cigs. Then there’s the game play and leveling system. They took every thing they did right in the last and pressed delete. The depth of the leveling in odyssey... great. This one felt like they had a moment where they said “okay, odyssey had a lot but we need to crank this one out fast so delete everything so that a 4 year old could understand and then that’ll be it!” Dude it’s an RPG! It’s gonna be a little complicated!
CLARKEE-BFDD 1 posts
Just bought it as I was finishing other games and I was hoping Valhalla would live up to expectations but after giving it a chance for about 3-4 hours, twice... I am mildly [censored] off at how the game looks, it speaks without moving lips and moth at times that well that its more like Jeff Dunham than a viking. Graphics look [censored] for a game of this time and a series with its prestige. Im going to see it through as I paid for it so im getting my monies worth but it looks like a 360 release.
jamkillerj3lly 3 posts
The graphics are not Bad on PC but they do downgrade in certain areas, I guess that's a must on such a Large map. Combat is also not Bad but not the best I think "Ghost of Tsushima" had something to do with that.
When it comes to the combat, I feel like I'm not enough in Control, like there is too many Automatic skills what I use to kill the npc's. Sorry to bring up "Ghost of Tsushima" but I love how it flows. You feel in control, you parry if you can, and you block if you have no idea what to do, you dodge for rhythm and Roll if you need to get space. The stance change is also amazing and makes sense for fighting different types of npc's. I feel like this is a great reference as you have similar gameplay.
I personally think the graphics are there. I think Games in general should take sometime off the graphics and focus on content and combat and general gameplay. I personally think AC: Games could half there size and just make cities be cooler with lots of little detail. AC is my favorite series of all time and I wish the best for these games. I think we need to bring more Assassin's back to the spotlight.
Another idea would be to make 2 types of games. 1st would continue this Action RPG route and they could be there own Games and 2nd Make a real Assassin's Creed Games.
VonSparrow 4 posts
I agree totally, this is the worst assassins creed game ever made , boring and very repetitive, the dlc is the same boring crap as the main game. I feel cheated by Ubisoft . Origins was a masterpiece and odyssey was too but Valhalla fails on so many points. One of my pet hates is looking for those dam keys , who in their right mind thought this up. I would say assassins creed unity is a far superior game than Valhalla. I’ll stick to immortals Fenyx rising which is far superior to Valhalla