Quor321 232 posts
I'm only 40% into the game and do enjoy it. But agree with most of what you said so far.
My concern is they did plan, or at least will add the improvements that are being asked for like it's new content. Even though it was in prior games like Odyssey. For example the demand for gear in Valhalla, already we are seeing new gear sets and weapons being added but of course they are in the store atm.
It's not new content or doing us any favors if it was in prior games. Should start with it all. Then add to the game with actual new content. Seen some threads on quality of life improvements like fixing the lack of categories for weapons and so on in inventory. It was in Odessey, why even change that. Makes no sense. Now they are going to waste a bunch of time fixing/adding things that should already of been in the game from day one.
@ac-talentless I agree with pretty much your whole post but one thing. I found the fishing to be quite fun; it is a bit broken and needs some work, but overall I found it a nice change to hop on a little fishing boat and wander down the river, stopping occasionally here and there, to catch some fish. The main issue at the moment is spawns in the ocean, but I'm sure they'll get around to it after they fixed some of the more major issues.
@ac-talentless I agree they did a pretty decent job with the game overall; especially with what I am sure have been difficult circumstances due to the pandemic. They'll fix the issues and by the end everyone will be saying what a great game it is just like Odyssey, which many people have short memories about the many issues that game had at the beginning.
Jaretdesheret 17 posts
@ac-talentless and by the end everyone will be saying what a great game it is just like Odyssey
It's not only about bugs, it's about having replayability. A lot of posters here had 500, 1000, 1500+ hours in Odyssey, because it had features for being fun beyond the main arc for hundreds of hours.
Valhalla has nothing to keep us playing more than 50-70 hours.
Still waiting for a miracle to happen...
@jaretdesheret I have thousands of hours in Odyssey as well, because of new game+, definitely not because it was worth continuing to play after completing the campaign. Before new game+ it was 2 play throughs to have a complete save with each character and then new game+ plays once that came on each character at least 2 times. I mean I already have, according to Ubi Connect 257+ hours on Valhalla and I am just on the second mission in England on my second play through. I will admit I had like a 40 hour run that I deleted and started over, but I have one save with 184 hours and my current save has 33 hours. So it is not hard to rack up tons of hours playing through the game just normally. And I am probably gonna do another run using the dual character option just to see what that is like.
Gryma- 25 posts
@ac-talentless For the 2 first point, they are In Game. For Flatfish and Mackerel, they are far from a viewpoint/harbor, so with the bug, this is very annoying to get them. For "avenge" quest, they are in game too. BUT actually, you need to find them by yourself (yup, that's very annoying too.). I don't know what Ubisoft doing about that actually, but for some people, that's frustrating.
200+ hours into my first playthrough. I have all the XB1 Achievements done. Only thing left to do that I know of as far as content is the hunter and fisher delieveries.
My impressions of AC Valhalla is this.
As an OG AC fan from the start with Altair, I have played and completed the stories and the majority of content for all but 3 of the mainline games. AC3, Unity, and Syndicate. My view focuses on the evolution of the franchise. This review and opinion is for the people who care more about Assassin's Creed than playing a RPG.
From a franchise perspective, gameplay and story, i felt as if AC:V was a huge step in the right direction. For AC fans, this game is a nice breath of fresh air. Admittedly I felt more as a Viking who the Hidden Ones/Assassins used as a boon, rather than feeling like a Hidden One itself. Yet the game gives and adds enough lore/background/ and subsistence to the Franchise to keep your needs satisified, yet wanting more. Slightly disappointing; but when taking the whole game into consideration and other areas of lore that is lacking that was addressed, it is forgiving.
From a Action RPG perspective, the combat mechanics were solid, (i quite enjoyed the step up from Origins to Odyssey). However I did not feel as if they were exceptional, although this might be a matter of taste.
I played on the Hard Combat setting. Unlike in Odyssey, I felt myself relying more on dodge/parrying with a combinations of light/heavy attacks. In odyssey i spammed abilities, and eventually with my Assassin's tree, i could kill 4-5 enemies all in the vicinity with little ease and brain work because of my abilities. What I'm trying to say is, in AC:Valhalla, the abilities are not overpowered like Odyssey. Sure you have some strong abilities and some good combinations, but deciding when to use what ability and positioning yourself to use it seems more situational. In essence you have to put more work and thinking into your combat, when in past games you could breeze through it without paying attention. That is a major plus.
While playing the game, there was this sense of mystery in the air. A sense of something always unseen or hidden behind the curtain. This intrigue and satisfaction of discovering something that was out of the way or very subtle is a experience a hope to experience in future AC games.
The Story telling and writing was my favorite in any AC Game. I felt real emotions and strong ones too. Even in the smaller quests (world events). I enjoyed Eivry as the protagonist (I played as Male). I felt connected and attached to him like I did to Ezio and Bayek. He in every sense is a Viking and pulled the role off well. I also felt as if this edition of AC culminates all major story arcs over the series and converges them into one "node" at the end. Giving us a nice refreshing start point going forward.
When it came to progression, it was much of a mixed bag. I liked and agreed with the decision of scrapping Odysseys loot system. Too much uncluttered junk. With Valhalla it seems the gear is made into different sets tailored for different builds, with 5 pieces of each armor set spread out. This system seems fine, but the problem is the game itself basically tells you exactly where each piece is if you do a little sherlocking. That aspect i did not like, and after I got the set I wanted (knowing basically exactly where to look), i had no further use in looking for other gear and materials for upgrades once i finished the upgrades.
In previous AC's i felt like I should have had my own rock climbing skill of its own. In Valhalla, cliffs and mountains exist, but your not climbing them every 2 minutes. If you know, you know, and this is a nice breath of fresh air compared to the Mountain Ranges of Egypt and Greece.
I could go on and on in my opinion of this game, but how I would sum this game up is this:
Dedicated and Veteran AC fans will love this game and see it for how it is: A good leap forward into the right direction.
(not perfect, but very satisfied with the effort and direction this game franchise is going in)
RPG Fans and casual fans will see this as a serviceable game, but it will be described as "Another Assassin's Creed", similar to (Another Call of Duty, we get every year).
Critics will focus more on certain aspects of the game, such as bugs and exploits you can do (if you choose to play without the spirit of AC or and RPG). With any RPG game mechanics can be abused, yet is it up to the Gamer how you play. Sure the visual bugs and the occasional having to restart the last game is annoying. These things can be fixed. What is important is what the Developers tried to do with Valhalla. I can honestly say, that after playing Valhalla, I feel that AC is in good hands if it continues using this formula and basic design in future games.
10/10 for Effort
8/10 for presentation/story telling
6.5/10 for Combat
@acewestfall08 I wanted to touch on a couple other things. Especially with progression. Keep in mind my playthrough was on Hard Combat, Normal Stealth, Pathfinder (Hard) Exploration.
With the leveling system, I felt this was the best yet. Through the first 50%-75% of my leveling progression, I really felt as if my choices skill picks and pathing with the armour and weapon to correlate with them really mattered. I had to use my brain and do some calculating. Deciding to whether to go with more passive/skills, or pick up stat boosting nodes instead.
The pacing was nice, but once I hit that 75% mark roughly into the game, I felt as if I was overpowered and could go with any build. I did however die a few times even then because of laziness or not paying enough attention.
As with my earlier post, the abilities was a mixed bag. I was disappointed with some of it. This very well could be a matter of taste and playstyle. I just felt as if some abilities accomplished the same thing.
Fire arrow/Poison Arrow, Fire Cloud Arrow/Poison Cloud Arrow. You couldve condensed these 4 skills into 2.
Then on the melee side you have rush bash into a wall which is basically the same as the spartan kick. They are both used in situations when you have a wall or ledge behind the enemy.
What I'm trying to say, I wouldve like more "versatility" in my abilities.
On the plus side, I couldnt just walk up in the front door of a base and instantly kill everybody like I could in Odyssey. (Remember the Chain Assassination [plus the gold perk of +1 Assassination to it], combined with the 100%+ Assassin Damage ability you could use IN COMBAT. It wasn't even fair in Odyssey. In Valhalla, there is no "1-Shotting" the "captains" and everybody around him at once. If you don't pay attention and your focus slips too much [and you dont have 6 rations], then you will die.
In previous AC games, raiding a fortress was always a highlight in my games. I don't even have to go into detail with Valhalla. If you liked clearing forts and big bases (or even if you didn't), this game amps that up a bit!.
Legendary Creatures were fun. I found the legendary creatures to be slightly easier than expected, (although a few took quite a while), but I felt no "real satisfaction" after beating them, save a couple. (maybe the experience wouldve felt better if I had actually seen the heads mounted in my longhouse). However, my opinion might change once I play on the Very Hard Difficulty. I just would've like to see more of them more "mechanically" challenging.
(While I'm on the topic of boss battles [the ones with advanced mechanics], I would pay money to have a feature with replayable key boss battles, or a gauntlet mode; maybe as a reward for completing them all?)
TheReignStorm 18 posts
This is the conclusion I've come to with Valhalla. AC games, regardless of their time in development, always seem to release as half-baked (more so than most other games from what I've seen). I stopped playing AC, for the most part, after ACII (what a game!) and picked it back up with Origins about six months after it launched. I had a blast and the game was mostly polished to perfection in my experience.
I enjoyed the series reboot (Origins) so much that I preordered Odyssey and, while it ended up being a great game with plenty of monthly updates, it launched in a less than favorable state. I gave Ubi the benefit of the doubt, based on how much time Valhalla had "in the oven" and again preordered. While I'm really enjoying the game, my overall feeling is disappointment with everything from bugs to, what feels to me anyway, less content than vanilla launch Odyssey (and most certainly final state Odyssey). I'm not sure why this wasn't "it" for Ubi, they had (or should have had) so many learnings and things to draw from with those mistakes made in their previous AC games...not to mention all of the time in development (a point they kept stressing to their fans).
The only games I preorder these days are most anything From Software (Soulsborne/Sekiro series), the Battlefield series and AC. Sadly, my AC preordering days die with Valhalla.
Max18400 402 posts
Can't help agree with many posts here. That said, the game does suffer from a severe lack of replayability.
Compared to Odyysey, the game is incredibly buggy on launch. I had Odyysey on day 1 and other then late loading textures, I had no issues. Not to mention, there were always contracts, conquest battles, chipping away at region stability, redoing forts etc before any dlcs where announced. Even before New game + Oddysey had much more going for it, in my opinion.
That's not to say Vahalla isn't a good game; just feels like half a game. The overarching story is good, but kinda fell flat on the historical narrative. I hope they add it in, but ending just before the Battle of Edington where nearly the whole of England's political network changed was a bit of a anti climax. For example, the battle takes places months after the games conclusion, then after the battle Guthrum became king of East Anglia, a new dynasty come to rule Western Mercia, Yorkshire and the 5 boroughs (aka establishment of the Danelaw and English Kingdoms of wessex and mercia as wessex's client Kingdom) and a essentially setting of a status quo for another 30 odd years in England.
Odyysey ended at this point as after the battle of Amphiplois,there was a peace for a few years of peace and ended the first stage of the peloponnesian war. Just seemed like a really weird place to end the story.
Gameplay wise, when it works, it plays really well, but it does need some balancing issues as late stage game offers nearly no challenge. Not to mention, still fuming at the lack of one handed swords and not much of a reward for hunting down the order of zealots.
Moving onto gear, I like that there's less, as you can find YOUR weapon and keep upgrading it and get attached to it. But the limitation of weapon types is a huge let down, and it essentially means I can't play the game how is ideally like to (I'm talking doing my bjorn ironside and Uhtred builds, like a one handed sword and shield or just a one handed sword). With loot they've gone from one extreme to another, with a lot of the armor types looks overly fantasy and the weapons look even worse. I've said in other posts, assassin creed works well when it balences fantasy and historical looking gear as it gives players choices about how they look/play. Personally I always lean towards wearing historically relevant gear, as I did in Oddysey, but I appreciate some players, such af Jo raptor, like playing in a more fantasy style. Just feels like my style of playing wasn't even considered much which is a bummer.
Also, I'm certain many aspects of the game development was rushed due to covid of pressure to release with the new consoles. But loads of issues are still really present. For example, playing as male Eivor and loads of characters referring to him and she... Just came across as really lazy and obviously overlooked (i do not care about what is 'Canon' as it is painfully immersion breaking).
I do want to emphasise I do enjoy the game, but I do find it disappointing in so many areas. Im not going to talk about stealth etc. But overall, it is a huge step down from Odyssey. Can only hope over the next few months, they fix a lot of this issues to bring the game up to scratch.
For those who are complaining about bugs. Please keep in mind that: (this in my personal opinion, im not an expert)
#1 Bugs is about PROGRAMMING, not creativity and design. (dropped out of college trying to learn 2 progamming languages at once). If you don't know anything about programming, or programming language/logic, I suggest you go try to code a simple calculator. You will gain a deeper appreciation and understanding for those who work on the game.
#2 While on the topic of Programming being the cause of bugs, to fix a bug, you need to change the code? (not sure). Fix a few errors in the code, maybe the logic is not in sequential order, or a certain command contains one small syntax error which causes the command to not run. In a game of this size, If sometime told me there were millions upon millions of lines of code, I would not be surprised. Everything will not be perfect at launch. Yet a small team has to double check everything, so where do you start? You have to test your game. The devs have a limited testing size team and things might work for them on their playthrough that doesnt work for others. What I'm saying there is SO MUCH DATA to go through and bug finding is more like fishing. Once the game is released the bugs that didn't get spotted, pop up because of a more people fishing/playing the game.
#3 Don't knock on VALHALLA itself because of bugs. Focus on story/lore/intentions/content. When you complain about things that can be fixed in game and weren't intended to be apart of the experience and use those complaints to say its a bad game, then in my opinion you are no better than a troll, and your opinion holds no weight. No offense.
Max18400 402 posts
@acewestfall08 you are right, some comments on the forum are unfair, but some are? You always expect a game to be slightly buggy upon launch, but many players were not expecting it to be as full of bugs as it is. Especially when many of them either stop people from playing/enjoying the game. In that case, people have the right to be angry and to vent (within reason). It comes down to ubisoft clearly being rushed and shouldn't released as early as they did if it was as buggy as it is
Some complaints are stuff that aren't bugs, and are clearly stuff that were rushed over which people are also frustrated by. For example, playing as a male and characters calling you she or her ('Canon' be damned, it really jarring abd immersion breaking) , there being no one handed swords (they're clearly coded in the game and for whatever last minute reason were not added in for the player to use), then you've got weird story elements, such as the epilogue ending in a weird place, people completing every area, and still not 100% the game. Does this mean they've not added in a whole section?
You're right in saying some people on here are no better than trolls, but be understanding as to why people are frustrated and annoyed?
£60-£100 odd quid is a lot of money to spend on an arguably unfinished product.
Pwn_Def 5 posts
@ac-talentless 237.5 hours in. Fishing, thanks for letting me know of wastes of time like mackerel. Have 4 opal that I can't get and 1 chest. 100+ crashes easy. Ubi focuses on those speeding their builds than those playing the game fully. I actually know how and when I'll crash. Longtime Ubi customer, they could care less and will let you know.
As far as I'm concerned Ubisoft owes true players some compensation or refund me half of the ultimate ps4/5 price because either system can't make you fly into the space opal. Have some choice words but they're enjoying their money like COD and surprisingly unlike cyberpunk. AC has failed 50× more and possibly more anticipated so where's our refund? I can't even post this...
ImaginaryRuins 404 posts
@ac-talentless Agree with most of what you said. I have sunk more than 200 hours into the game, and as one who played all AC main titles, I enjoyed AC Valhalla immensely but yes it does have flaws.
More condensed map, love it (spent hours doing side activities and never felt tedious); separating main story into more self-contained quests, love it; Orlog, love it; the overall environment, love it.
Definitely agree that many of the Abilities are kind of just there for flashy moves; I in fact almost never use them. I also almost never changed gear - I stuck to the Raven equipment, and only changed to Excaliber and Thor's Hammer.
Fishing machnaism can really use improvement like you said.
Asgardian02 1932 posts
to me its strange that a huge open world has almost nothing to offer loot wise.
Enemies dont drop stuff and as far as weapons and gear there isnt much diversity.
A lot of items are just the same but have stats for wolf, bear or raven.
For example increase drit damage with x amount of enemies around