34 Likes/227 Replies/2666 Views
I loved Odyssey. Gameplay & everything about it. I liked the armour & weapon drops because I could break them down for materials for my armour & weapon upgrades or my ship upgrades. (Which would be great for upgrading the settlement in Valhalla).
Fighting & combat was better in Odyssey because of the Spear, he was basically dual wielding in the game anyway so dual wielding in this game fits.
Special skills were better in Odyssey except I only skill I've used at all in Valhalla is throwing axes & assassination.
I wish we could bring back map tracking & using bird tracking enemies, tracking enemy camps so I could plan strategy, & more.
Also seems like they overpowered bosses but under powered main character.
Being level 230 & losing to a zealot knight with power level of 90.
Or Fight a mad witch in an area level 20 & I come back at level 250 which I still lose to her & I barely hurt her. Bosses are way overpowered.
At least in Odyssey I felt I was getting stronger & combat was fun.
Killgore1981 21 posts
I'd be happy if I could just progress in the game and be done with it. Almost 140 hours spent and I'm at a complete impasse with The Big Finish bug and the Lincolnscire storyline bug which prevents me from completing a branch of the Order of the Ancients.
TheGodlyBacon 10 posts
@lukensen87 Indeed! Valhalla stepping away from the whole fantasy and demigod nonsense is my biggest praise of it!
And I'm sure ppl are going to flame me for this, but oh well. The further this series can move from Odyssey, the better. That game was bloated, boring, grindy AF, and frankly should be ashamed to have Assassin's Creed in the title
Well they weren't demi-gods. But I thought it was interesting.
It's a video game that has the world ending every 2 - 4 yrs it seems. And these Isu were like God's so why not?
Its all fantasy anyway. You can still have historical events with a fictional storyline & amazing maps, characters, & NPCs.
Assassins creed 3 was horrible & revolved around Revolutionary War but had nothing to do with it.
AC Unity was same for French Revolution which was slightly better.
And in Greek times they called people who did things no one had done before demi-gods.
Im just Curious why yall want historical accuracy when AC itself is fiction.
Because actual accuracy would mean dismemberment of limbs alot easier than game allows, killing civilians with out desync, & more.
Plus from a military perspective I could point out hundreds of problems with guards & different things that are way off.
So you cant have it both ways.
Personally, I say Odyssey was the best AC game I've played. The only other game is Witcher.
I actually got every trophy in Odyssey which I almost never do & I've repeated it multiple times cause it was so good.
Plus I get to choose the ending.
ACESsigepps 21 posts
My biggest problem with this game compared to Odyssey is the gear drops and salvaging for mats. They should of kept this old loot system but needed to add some form of crafting. But yea, Gear/Sets are useless along with the bird in this game.
TORFINR 366 posts
@chevy_man2010 I agree.
My own (and subjective) point of view is: are we entertained and how long can we stay entertained?
Odyssey entertained me, and can still entertain me 2 years later.
It's the graphics and the combats sure, it's also the main story, sure. But it's above all the "other activities" you can do beyond that story. Odyssey had a great 80-100 hrs main story, followed by hundreds of hour of fun. Some of us are still leveling our Alexios/Kassandra. We still have things to chew and keep us busy. Odyssey had those features right out of the box (and were made better patch after patch), Valhalla has not. Valhalla has a beginning, and an end. As it stands, the overall replayability is unexistant or at best shallow and poor.
If we want such features, if Ubi wants to build such things, they will have to build them from scratch. They'll have to change some concepts, ... can we really think or hope that they will do it?!
It's not about correcting a bug, or making a specific feature better and smoother, it's about adding elements which are cruelly missing in the game. Mandatory features if we want in 2 years from now continue to say that "Valhalla is good" and not talk about it in the past tense.
Cause in 2 years from now, because of its architecture Odyssey will continue to be a good game. Odyssey will be a 4 years old game, which is build to remain entertaining. The future of Valhalla worries me.
ValtyrNine 87 posts
Honestly the only good things that came out of this game in terms of features in comparison to Odyssey are that the combat feels much more weighty and tactile, as it should, the parry system is greatly improved and the combat controls are better, and that one section of the game that's side-content with the mythological areas because the portrayal of those settings is top-notch and something that Ubi should have focused on instead of tacking it onto the main game. The leveling system in Valhalla is also a great improvement over Odyssey's, combined with the new combat system it's possible to easily fight enemies outside of your level range based on your skill instead of how in Odyssey you would just get completely annihilated by an enemy only a couple levels higher than you for most of the game (on Nightmare, anyways, I don't know what it's like on lower difficulties).
Odyssey has better systems, MUCH better movement and climbing, better questing and exploration experience, and a world that generally felt much more dynamic and "real" with things to discover where you wondered what you'd find instead of just "oh, another ingot".
SouldrinkerLP 316 posts
@chevy_man2010 Dude, just hit like 5 ore veins and you have 50-100 iron ore and kill 4 animals and have 150 leather. When you have finished the game the animals and veins drop resources in crazy amounts. Titanium will respawn as far as I have seen. There is some of it everywhere in every village and city. So there is absolutely zero need for dismantling weapons for upgrade resources.
Edit: The Isus were not "like gods". They were just a technological advanced.species which created humans basically as work slaves just like we are heading toward creating AI for all kind of (basically slave) labour. Our gods are the legends about the Isu which got less and less accurate as time passed by and ultimately becoming the "gods" we know today.
The statement of AC basically is that every god humans believed in is false and just a legend about the Isu changing over time. (With the exception so far of the abrahamic religions. They probably try to not get a shitstorm for saying the christian god or allah doesn't exist.)
JGunns 10 posts
ACV reminds me more of AC: Origins vs AC: Odyssey. AC:Odyssey is almost like a different species in play style and feel. I read that many team members who worked on AC: Odyssey went on to Immortals Fenyx Rising while Montreal worked on ACV. I can on speculate that Immortals Fenyx Rising might offer a more similar feel to AC: Odyssey than ACV.
I agree. I could go back to Odyssey right now & still do so much. Because its so much there if you look unless you find everything & do every side mission you wont get 100% sync plus even then I couldn't finish level my character so I had to restart with game plus which I havent finished and I was at level 85. And I never maxed out all the mastery skills or the actual skills which is my next goal but I stopped for Valhalla.
I think valhalla is gonna flop. Its not long enough, big enough map, & gameplay is horrible.
Origins & Odyssey is what the game should be. Great graphics, captivating story with interactive environment with side missions because back in that time it took months if not years to do things we are doing in hours on the game so they need other missions & to help people along the way to gather information, resources, craft weapons, break down weapons & armour in the field, craft arrows, adapt enemy resources, and more like we did in Odyssey.
Everyone crying about historical accuracy; its a game. Nothing about the story line is historically accurate except they might introduce a character they confirmed lived back then like they have done with Leonardo DaVinci, Leonidas, Socrates, Alexander Bell, & others.
Its a game. Let's enjoy it because the Animus, Isu, & everything is fiction so just roll with the story. Because Valhalla story line isn't bad just Ubisoft shouldn't have removed 98% of the mechanics Odyssey used.
See now thats just ridiculous so you max out your level & they are significantly beneath you in power but somehow still as strong as you. That isnt logical either im stronger than you or im not.
If I out rank you & im stronger then when we fight it should be obvious. Especially in boss fights.
DreadGrrl 165 posts
Almost every AC game (except Blackflag, for me) has had a compelling story. While Odyssey’s story was exceptionally compelling to me, they’ve almost all been interesting enough to capture my interest right away.
Montreal did get my attention right away with Origins, and held it all the way through. Bayek is my favourite main protagonist, and Aya is one of my favourite AC characters of all time. I don’t know how the same studio could have produced the dull story and protagonist that are Valhalla. I’ve only played 22 hours of Valhalla (versus 300+ for Origins and 1000+ for Odyssey) and it has been a chore.
I’m all about the story. I can’t even bring myself to keep playing Valhalla at this point. It is about as inspiring as vegetable lasagna.
bizantura 14 posts
Oh dear. I did not préorder nor bought it on day one. Mostly glaring reviews one can't rely on anymore.
I did listen to the actors behind the characters I read where exceptional. I found them to be dull.
Will pick it up on later date when price is seriously reduced.
Had a blast with Odyssey too. Nice to read from the old Odyssey crowd and their thoughts on the new addition.
DreadGrrl 165 posts
@bizantura I acquired the PC version for free from the AMD promotion. I cancelled my Xbox pre-order of the Ultimate version a few weeks before launch. I was becoming increasingly concerned about what I was seeing in gameplay videos and about what I was reading from Ubisoft staff.
I am very, very glad that I cancelled my pre-order. I would have been very upset if I'd spent $160 CAD on Valhalla. I'm okay with my free version, as I needed to rebuild my computer anyway and I needed a new CPU. The free version of Valhalla did sway me to go AMD over Intel, but the AMD processor has been performing really well for my video editing. I don't have any complaints about it.
Its a shame that I don't find Valhalla compelling. The previous two installments were so incredibly good. Valhalla has been a huge letdown in so many ways. I've been playing the new Destiny 2 expansion and season instead, and I'm really enjoying that. Not playing Valhalla will also free me up to play Cyberpunk when it is eventually released, too.
longjohn119 629 posts
That's pretty much my take on it ..... I'd be a whole lot more upset if I had actually paid money for it and while the AMD promotion was nice the CPU is worth the cost even without the free game .... Currently I have no intentions of buying the DLCs they are going to have to make some serious changes before I'm wasting any money on this train wreck .... I can tolerate the story if basic things like the aim lock worked and I didn't run into bugs 2 out of 3 monastery quests ..... Bugs will suck all the fun out of a game faster than a substandard story
Cell1e 174 posts
Oh gosh I feel the same, also its pretty dark too which Im finding difficult.
I just cant understand the theme is to make friends and allies with all the rulers of each county but then you go and raid their monastries and steal adn murder theri citizens, it doesnt make sense to me.
I wish I had cancelled my preorder..I think I would be happy to pay for the base game at a later date on sale.