ubisoft discussions

Quick Suggestions

  • Moved Valhalla should be a lot better, but its a lot worse than Origins and Odyssey. Ubisoft have been lazy and rushed it out for Christmas.

    9 Likes/38 Replies/681 Views
    232 posts

    @max18400 I got Origins and Odyssey when they were complete and on sale. I can understand that side of the issue if those games on release felt more complete without DLC. It's possible with the massive size of the game Ubi left the game feeling that way till all DLCs are released. I am trying to hold back judgement till I finish the game as is, and see what the DLCs hold.

    So far the only issue that bothers me is the store. The game has some obvious design to try and get some increased store sales. The gear side of it doesn't bother me like it does many others, but the way silver and materials is in game does. Raid a supposed monastery full of riches just to open a chest with 1 silver in it. Break the crate next to it and get 7 silver. Selling animal parts and fish should not be the best farming methods for silver in a Viking game. Seem like an obvious attempt to sell silver packs and material packs. The drastic change in gear drops also seems like a money grab as new sets enter the store on the regular. The store will always have a place in games but the items should be able to be found in game, even the cosmetic stuff. Silver and materials should be far easier to come by for a successful raiding Viking clan.

  • Asgardian02
    1938 posts


    there is difference when game sell purely cosmetic items or actually op weapons and armour in their game

  • Max18400
    411 posts

    @quor321 that's fair enough. I hope you enjoy.
    Although i was disappointed by the ending as I've said before as I know what historically happens shortly after the game finishes.

  • Quor321
    232 posts

    @asgardian02 I actually like it. Single player games needed to step up as MMOs could hold players attention potentially for years. MMOs in my opinion just made other games more epic. We went from games that could be completed in a day or two to games that took around 100 hrs give or take and that is just to first part of the game. For the younger players that don't know about these facts, or older players that forgot, you should take it into account when complaining about the price of a modern single player game. Or the manner in which they are released.

  • Asgardian02
    1938 posts


    thats all fine and dandy, but then they should structured their game differently.

    You cant expect ppl to get excited to pay 660 euros for a game, play said game. finished it with maybe a month and then wait for updates that take roughly 3 moths to release, and what are you coming back for to the game then?
    Maybe another 10 hours worth of content. yeah i dont think so..

  • Quor321
    232 posts

    @asgardian02 I do understand how it can be frustrating. For many they wont even be done with the main story before DLC gets released. It really is only an issue for those that do nothing but play games. Many complain that games are to long and to massive now. It is more about individual perspective then a problem with how Ubi or other companies release their games.

  • Asgardian02
    1938 posts


    also your point isnt very valid.

    The witcher3 for exmaple hooked me for well over 500hours worth of gameplay and they dont have MTX's all over their game.
    Played Diablo3 for over 3000 hours, no MTX'sthere either.

  • FylkirPanzer
    180 posts

    @asgardian02 I've been actually replaying through Witcher 3 again, and I've got to say, it's kept me more hooked than AC Valhalla ever did. Meaningful Side content and contracts, tons of stuff to explore, finding actual randomized equipment in chests (aside from witcher gear) and off of enemies, the world is alive with commerce, monsters, conversations, and situations where you can get involved or not, etc., etc.

    I greatly enjoyed those things when Odyssey did them, not sure why they decided to gut Valhalla in every way that made me love Odyssey. Hopefully something meaningful comes out in February and some much needed changes come about, because Valhalla is nothing compared to previous, older games.

  • Quor321
    232 posts

    @asgardian02 You proved my point. Clearly you do nothing but play games so of course from your perspective the manner in which Ubi is releasing the game would be frustrating. Especially if you paid upfront for all content.

    If you are referring to my comment on how older games could be done in a day or two you will need to go back further then Witcher 3. I'm thinking of games like Crisis, or Shadow of the Colossus. Those single player games that never needed an internet connection. Just buy a disc install and play. Those games were good for their time but couldn't hold players like World of Warcraft. That has clearly changed as you also proved with the time you devoted to Witcher 3 and Diablo 3.

  • Asgardian02
    1938 posts


    omg, way to go on making assumptions.

    just a waste of time discussing here further

  • Plan3tCrackr
    46 posts

    @quor321 AC games should only need an internet connection to download patches or to connect to the store, which is really unnecessary in game. Even a simple connection at launch to update the daily items available through Reda is at most what is necessary. Achievements / trophies should all be accessible offline. An active internet connection for such games is a hinderance to game performance if not executed correctly.

  • Quor321
    232 posts

    @plan3tcrackr I was very annoyed when it became mandatory to be online to play a single player game. It does have it's down side for sure. I should not lose the ability to play my games just because the app I play through is down or needs an update. Plus side is the scale of the games, ease of update and the ability to save to the cloud. Back in the day if my computer went down or if I didn't transfer files from one hard drive to a new one I would lose all progress.

  • DuskDragon56496
    475 posts

    A lot of you have simply missed my point completely, I'm not complaining about Ubisoft having items in their helix store, what I'm angry about is Ubisoft constantly sacrificing the game to make the store more relevant.If loot doesn't matter and the armors are just dandy in the game than why aren't the perks on those armors in the game where they should be.Why do we have to pay extra for them? Constantly saying "just ignore the store" is precisely the reason Ubisoft continues to take from the game to put in their store,and it's only going to get worse,just the way it's already gotten worse now!
    Odyssey started out to be a lackluster game to a lot of people but it ended up becoming awesome,you built your character in that game,their were ship battles,they were almost half the game, their were mythical creatures to fight,hell I used to rush through the game just for the fun of fighting the minotaur again,a lot of attention was paid to good solid content,unlike Valhalla,where the point of the game is to rebuild the town over and over...Yea! Odyssey may have had a lot of cookie cutter buildings but the map was so big it was hard to notice at times,sorry but straw houses and and cookie cutter churches aren't much more of an inspiration!
    Valhalla still has a chance to be the great game it could be if they would concentrate on fixing the game,and putting in more replayable content rather than putting items in the store every two weeks.Putting the Yuletide festival in the game in the state it was in, with the new bugs and zero new content should be a pretty good indicator about how Ubisoft feels about their customers,they might as well told us to [censored] OFF! to which I probably would have had more respect for them.The day will come when Ubisoft games will become pay to play,it's going to happen,just a matter of time,just remember this as the time people said..."just don't worry about the store."Just like everything else in life people have to learn the hard way and usually when it's too late too stop it!

  • Eduardo.PF
    15 posts

    @tinteretto Agreed !!! I've been trying to play the game but kinda "avoiding" some known bugged missions (check the list, it's still HUGE). Is it really possible to enjoy a game and have fun with soooooo many bugged missions ?? I don't think so .... It's almost like like buying a brand-new car but then "oops, the right door is not working" (ok, try just the left one for now).... "oops, my electric window is not working (try to open it manually while we try to find a fix) .. and so on .... Isn't that ANNOYING ?? Some bugs are expected, ok .... But why so many ??? 😠

  • Kormac67
    1144 posts

    @eduardo-pf Just drop a manual save before you start a story arc so you can roll it back if it goes to hell. There are NO always-bugged missions in the game.
    But yeah, I played through Glowecestershire with a bad feeling all the time. Which is a pity, it is a fun arc. Lucky me I didn't get the cloak bug.

  • hroozenbeek
    1024 posts

    @eduardo-pf I agree. The frequency and severity of the various bugs (including frequent crashes) distracted me from enjoying the game to the fullest. It's like driving with the handbrake on. And reading these forums I realize that I have been very lucky because most of the story bugs have not even surfaced in my playthrough. Apart from that, the game seems to need a lot more finetuning regarding combat (normal combat compared to zealots etc.) and (social) stealth. I have found it next to impossible to move around in distrust areas (short of resorting to using rooftops and avoiding coming near to soldiers in general) without triggering combat. All in all: a game that was released before it was ready. That said, when compared to previous AC titles, Valhalla has its strong points and its weaker ones, as do all games. Gear choice does not really bother me, but that is personal. I do regret the anticlimactic ending(s), but that is just part of the deal. Hopefully, a future AC title will handle that aspect better (and will ruin some other aspect, of course 😉 ).

  • DreadGrrl
    165 posts

    While I agree that Valhalla should absolutely be better, I don't agree that it was "rushed."

    It was scheduled to be an Xbox Series X launch title. Ubisoft can't control Microsoft's schedule. In addition to that, the Province of Quebec (where the City of Montreal and Valhalla's primary development studio are located) was hit exceptionally hard by Covid-19: the Canadian Military was actually called in for healthcare and nursing support.

    Valhalla is disappointing, but considering what Ubisoft Montreal was up against, they did better than I would have expected.

  • SofaJockey
    372 posts

    @tinteretto I'm sure there were many commercial pressures associated with ACV being a console launch game.

    There have been a few issues, but not as many as other hyped games. To characterise the effort as 'lazy' seems rather ignorant of both the reality of the situation and how game development works.

    I don't doubt it went out of the door slightly undercooked due to fixed launch dates, but I can't credit anyone has been sitting around.

    My first playthrough was around 190 hours and I used (upgraded) the same weapon I picked up in hour 1 but personally that was my choice as I preferred it to others I picked up later.

Suggested Topics