moved can Ubisoft stop "parenting" us on how to play game? (de-sync if "viking" kill npc civilians!?)57 likes/295 replies/6958 viewsPotatoePet ubisoft:x-posts, 316
@daelosthecat And I as a hardcore AC fan from the first hour would love them to reduce that stuff even more. It's not necessary for an AC game. They could create a new historical franchise where all of this stuff can work. Or they can create a spin-off with the already established Abstergo Entertainment creating video games like these where everything is possible in the historic settings.
Huge problem for me right now is that Quebec is making mainline AC games while not understanding the lore and what makes it fascinating for the fans. The DLCs for Odyssey were a big punch in the face to everyone who loves the mysteries AC has to offer and how they treated them. The damage done is permanent of course and Valhalla was the last chance I gave Ubisoft to rescue AC and so far I have a lot of fun with it and enjoying the actual Assassins (or "The Hidden Ones") content. After all it is called >Assassins< Creed.
DaelosTheCat ubisoft:x-posts, 182
100% agree man. I mean, I enjoy playing the new AC games, but it saddens me that they no longer try to have historical accuracy. As far as I remember, during the development of the original AC game Altair's crossbow was removed and this was explained to have been done in order to be more historically accurate. And what do we have now? Magic and fantasy. It's a safe bet that one of these days an AC game will feature dragons and wizards. Cause why the heck not?
@doctordoom11235 To be fair, Ubi had been moving more and more away from the true lore of the series, that it all plays out in a simulated reality.
But if you follow that entirely why are you even playing the game, it could just be a movie if you don't have any choice than to do and follow exactly the things that your character did and did not do.
It's not like they went into depth as why you could do it in Origins so why would they need to somehow explain why you're allowed/not allowed to in Valhalla. I'm sure no one would be confused or mad that you can do it in Valhalla because that would make more sense (since you are a viking after all) than to figuring out why you could do it in Origins.
Ubisoft are approaching the entire series in a more and more of a historical game than a creed following brotherhood/sisterhood which follow strict rules, which by the way is really cool but it's not what AC is about anymore. So far.
To be honest, I would think it's much cooler if you could be what you want in the game and either be a ruthless berserk viking or a humble and wise assassin-esque viking. They should drop the animus-shtick excuse and let us do what we want in the game(s).
Original poster mitsunari3 ubisoft:x-posts, 74
@souldrinkerlp children is invincible in Odyssey. making children killable would cause controversy, its a line even gta & carmageddon hasn't crossed. we don't expect ubisoft to cross that line.
you can have your opinion on Odyssey, like it or not, its sales beats previous releases, and its positive review in steam is one of the highest AC despite denuvo (88% out of 73922), percentage surpassed by none; beating Origins, Revelations, Syndicate, Rouge, Unity, 1, 2, etc.
(deal with it, statistics don't lie)
the whole "Animus" excuse is invalid when you can change Eivor's gender.
what players do outside missions are not canon, no one describes Bayek (ACP on), Alexios, Kassandra as cold blooded murderer.
if you want to control everything, its pointless to make a fake open world.
fans like you are looking backwards, not forwards.
there are reason old AC sales & popularity are weaker than other REAL open-world games, narrow-minded devs with narrow-minded fans.
Chevy_man2010 ubisoft:x-posts, 83
I loved Odyssey. What every is leaving out is if you killed civilians you got a bounty put on your head & you were a criminal until you dealt with it like in the real world.
Second, what is historically accurate about the Isu? Everyone seems to have forgotten this is a game about being that came before that people thought were God's that died out which is where the DLC's for Odyssey got their simulations from for the staff which were pretty awesome in my opinion.
I do agree there should be more freedom in the game cause civilians continue to get in the way during raids (collateral damage) shouldn't be de-synced for that.
Also Eivor should heal like a normal person when not in combat over time.
There are historical accuracies but remember the story is based around a fantasy (Isu/Gods) so you cant complain.
Odyssey raised the bar. I think there should be a bounty hunter part in this game as well. Because with every action there is a consequence.
PotatoePet ubisoft:x-posts, 316
@mitsunari3 Did I say I think the "choose your gender" is a good thing in Valhalla (or Odyssey)? Because I don't think so. At least there is a somewhat "clever" explanation in Valhalla. So you want to tell me it's a good trait for a game to have as much ludonarrative dissonance as possible? Seems silly to me.
The Animus argument is not an "excuse". It's the very foundation this series built upon and became what it is today. Odyssey is a successor to previous titles and would never have been as successful if the previous games didn't build up the franchise itself. I don't feel like we will ever find a common ground for a discussion here.
@Chevy_man2010 I do prefer to play a character with set traits. Considering the whole premise of living through what actually happened it makes sense that you are not playing with a blank slate of a character like you did in Odyssey. Never did I experience any civilian getting in the way of raids in 44h of game. Normal people never heal just from running and climbing around. Then make it really realistic and have him lay down for days (real time) so you have the immersive experience of healing from wounds and maybe you can get an infection and get perma death so you have to restart?
Regarding the "fantasy" stuff. That's the point of AC. It's real history and everywhere where we don't have all knowledge about history (and there is a lot of things we don't know for certain) AC embeds its own story instead of changing history completly.
Odyssey didn't raise a bar. They dropped integrity of the franchise in favor for cheap moments, directly contradicting it's direct predecessor. The leap of faith was established by Bayek (precisely his father) centuries later than Odyssey.
One thing Valhalla did so much better with ease and ultimately showing how much more Valhalla is caring about the lore than Odyssey did, which thought "oh cool, leap of faith. lululul. everybody do the leap of faith"
The leap of faith got emotional weight with Origins and Odyssey immediately destroyed that rendering the progress made in Origins in that point totally worthless. There are so many more examples of that. I don't know how anybody can actually defend a game like Odyssey which has Copy & Paste all over the map. That much that there is a region where the exact same outpost is put 400m of each other. With the exact same soldiers and guarding patterns. Odyssey had a lot of these moments whereas Valhalla has way more unique and distinct regions.
But we probably won't find a common ground for a discussion too. At least you didn't try to insult me and my intellect as being "narrow minded" like that other dude.
Elearon ubisoft:x-posts, 42
I tend to agree. While killing civilians is not my thing, I think you should have the right to do so if you want. In 'Odyssey' the townsfolk would gang up and attack you, then Mercs would be called, so there was a price to playing like that but you could still do it if you wanted. I think that's an important distinction. Let the game 'punish' the player with in-world consequences but don't take away their choice to have those consequences befall them.
Again, before I get attacked, I would not play this way - I just believe in giving players options.
MixedRawMeat ubisoft:x-posts, 1
Haha don't make me laugh...
They must be the most soft and civilized Vikings ever. Not realistic at all. It isn't what I was expecting for Valhalla.
Chevy_man2010 ubisoft:x-posts, 83
@souldrinkerlp I dont resort to name calling. You have your opinion & I have mine.
I enjoyed the Ezio story line, Syndicate, Unity, & Odyssey is the only game I've ever played enough to get 100% completion cause I enjoyed it so much .
Odyssey is my favorite so far. For alot of the game play mechanics. I know not everyone will agree with my assessment.
I liked the ability to breakdown armour & weapons I didn't want or to sell them.
To do bounty hunter contracts & if people got in my way & they died or killed guards or people for no reason a bounty was put on me. Kept me on my toes.
Valhalla seems like a good game but so many bugs & glitches. Plus I hate the glowing dots, on top of fact that when you get near stuff it vanishes & Odin/eagle vision seems worthless. At least in Odyssey on map & tagging system took you straight to stuff.
Feren142 ubisoft:x-posts, 4
Totally agree. Stop choosing my morals for me. They do the same thing in ghost recon.
Ehllfhire1 ubisoft:x-posts, 86
@souldrinkerlp Not an argument or anything that I have something directly against but Valhalla do have the same reused model for certain buildings. Like some churches that have a destroyed roof are reused around the map. Although not very close.
OneFromHell ubisoft:x-posts, 7
There is already enough characters in this game for you to kill as it is. Tons of enemy soldiers as well as animals. How many more do you need in order to satisfy your bloodlust. This isn't a massacre simulator. It's Assassin's Creed. You want to slaughter everyone in sight, go play Postal.
PeacekeeperSun ubisoft:x-posts, 32
It is a part of Assassin's Creed. Quit killing NPC's