Moved can Ubisoft stop "parenting" us on how to play game? (de-sync if "viking" kill npc civilians!?)54 Likes/295 Replies/3587 Views
in contrast to what you said, there are complains that npc civilians in the way causing de-sync during raiding
Balla_Jazzuz 100 posts
I did get that pop up with "de-syncronisation" when I accidentally killed those civilians who was in the way as you described, but I didn't notice any difference anyway.
But then again I don't feel this is an important issue, I play every game as it is and I only complain about bugs and crashes.
If it doesn't fit to my liking I just don't play it.
@balla_jazzuz some of us don't want to be restrained for unnecessary reason.
"artificial intelligence" act after players kill unimportant npc, has been in 3d open world games since 2001.
ubisoft is lame & late in that aspect, Ubisoft Quebec finally fixed that in Odyssey in 2018.
this game has potential, that's why we complain.
achill3s19 2 posts
@dbgager Um yes you can, I killed a ton in Alexandria in origins lmao, and a bunch of civilians in Athens when I played odyssey, which was fun because some of them tried to fight back lol. You’re a Viking in this game, killing innocents and pillaging was literally Part of their culture, and this is a game that is suppose to be heavily based in historical facts and events.
That I didn't even notice this after 44h makes me feel somewhat sane after reading this thread tbh. I only discovered they removed it in Odyssey by accident. Considering the context of the Animus it had huge implications that our protagonist is an outright cold blooded murderer and seeminlgy enjoying it as there is not even a comment about it.
This thread is also funny because people saying they want to kill civilians also say that they should make children invincible tho. Why? If your argument is that you want "total freedom" and a "real" open world game, it would imply it would be totally OK for you that you can dismember and behead children in the game. By saying that children should be excluded, you are admitting that you have a different line which shouldn't be crossed than others. My line is with cold blooded murder of absolutely innocent civilians.
It's actually funny that prior to Odyssey I never read anyone complaining about it. Seems like Odyssey actually was a huge mistake in every regard. Ubisoft won't be able to combine the different "fan bases".
Nothing good ever came from Quebec in regards to AC for me. Syndicate and Odyssey were filled with extreme plot holes because they didn't understand the lore and by that they have basically destroyed huge parts of the AC lore.
So I hope Ubisoft will let Quebec make Odyssey-esque games without the AC branding so they can do whatever they want without destroying established lore and alienating an established fanbase and continue the way they are headed with AC now.
DaelosTheCat 167 posts
I would never go killing civilians. That being said, Ubisoft have already gone so far into fantasy explained by "this is just an Animus simulation" (such as riding a wolf, for instance) that having any player actions de-syncing just shows the devs were too lazy to implement a proper crime and punishment system.
@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 167 posts
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?
I_Am_David_ 9 posts
@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).
@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 83 posts
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.
@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 42 posts
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 1 posts
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.