Continue your odyssey

Welcome to discussion

Welcome to discussion

Quick Suggestions

Hello! These new forums are an open beta and we welcome your feedback in this section.
  • Max18400
    400 posts

    @gloomseeker definitely. That said, I still get really annoyed by the gear's ott size haha, also I don't remember it happening much with odyssey's as they kinda used the geography of Greece and mission structures to sort of deter it from happening.

  • kreutzgang
    635 posts

    I also find it a bit redundant to bring up TW3 all the time, especially as @Gloomseeker pointed out, it's not really an RPG or an open world, and the choices leading up to the ending you get are terrible imho. Not to mention that, ofc, TW3 copied enough other stuff itself. One person on this forum even accused Valhalla of copying TW3 house in Blood and Wine, when you had an abode as early as AC2 (I never played 1, so idk if it was in that), and in TW3, plonking a house in the last DLC is kinda lame. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the game, I love it, but there are better open worlds and better RPG's out there. Also people forget that TW is based on a universe that was already created by a third party and quite a lot of the narrative content is a rehash of stuff from the books.

  • Asgardian02
    1932 posts

    @kreutzgang

    in what way is W3 not open world or not RPG?

  • kreutzgang
    635 posts

    @asgardian02 In a proper RPG you can freely create your own character; The Witcher has a set main character who also has a set personality, and as I already said before, the choices with consequences in the main story are pretty shallow. It's not like your character makes impactful decisions based on the personality you created, you just get whatever ending based on some petty interactions with Ciri (which also undermine her own agency). You can use games like Dragon Age Origins, Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder Kingmaker as examples of RPG's. In DAO you can be human, dwarf or one of two types of elves, you can be male or female, rogue, mage or warrior (and subclasses thereof, with blood mage being particularly interesting), you can be evil, good or try to play as a true Warden who is neither the one nor the other and will do whatever it takes to fight the Blight, and there are tons of different endings based on the choices you make. You can be heterosexual, bi, gay, not bother with romance at all, or have multiple relationships; you can keep all your companions or mange to get rid of most of them, or not recruit them in the first place. The Witcher 3 is level-gated, making it not a proper open world. A proper open world would let you go everywhere any time, like Oblivion or Skyrim, where you can just hang around doing whatever and completely ignoring the main quest. OFC people have issues with the level-scaling used in Elder Scrolls, but that's another issue.

  • Max18400
    400 posts

    The witcher 3 is an open world adventure game with rpg elements. That is how it is described.

  • Asgardian02
    1932 posts

    @kreutzgang

    how can you say they are shallow, compared to AC games even.

    There is so much more choice in W3 then there is in any ac game i ever played.

  • kreutzgang
    635 posts

    @asgardian02 not compared to AC, but compared to actual RPG's. Also, I mean the decisions that impact the ending of the main quest per se, which imo is the worst part of TW3. Even Valhalla was better than that with the Sigurd outcomes, as it's based on decisions that are obviously meaningful as opposed to random crap like letting Ciri trash someone's workshop xD

  • DuskDragon56496
    367 posts

    Oh yeah right...so some old guy who tells you to burn down his house, kill his cow and break his possessions is much more thought provoking or inspirational, or how about a fight club where you win the BBB championship with 3 fights, amazing story telling definitely, Overrated ! Not a true RPG use any analogy you wish, but the fact is The W3 is everything Assassins Creed RPG could never be and has tried for the past 4 years, but just keep missing the mark! BTW the reason the level system worked in TW3 is because they know how to balance their games,ubisoft does it through patches which is why theirs always sucks.

  • Asgardian02
    1932 posts

    @kreutzgang

    well everyone is entiteld to their own opinion of course. Its fine.

    All in all these discussion seem to be very futile on these forums anyway as most of the folks here seem to look at the AC-series as the pinnacle of the gaming industry.

  • AlphaGoose46219
    155 posts

    @max18400 Valhalla is a RPG without any choice, even when you take another dialog option you get not only the same answer but exactly the same outcome as well.
    Played the game 3 times from the start! (have to much time these months), tried to make all kinds of various decisions, replayed many events, outcome doesn't chance.
    Only Sigurd's opinion will be different in the end.
    Don't know what Valhalla is, side quests are dlc's, events could have been side quests, character build/development is limited.
    The Ireland DLC seems to be the rest of the story!
    For me this isn't a RPG at all, a mix of all flavors never taste good.
    GOTY ..... not for something that is complete different than it claims to be, haven't mentioned the quality and defects.

  • Max18400
    400 posts

    @alphagoose46219 completely agree

  • Asgardian02
    1932 posts

    @gloomseeker

    sure, but i expected ppl to be a bit more open minded and maybe play other games as well?
    Being a fan is not bad perse, mind you, i am just saying its good to play other games from time to time and then compare stuff.

    I never play range nor stealth, so for me the W3 was a perfect game. I really like the combat with the potions and what not.
    Switching blades and everything. Played on hardest setting and it was a nice challenge.

  • Asgardian02
    1932 posts

    @alphagoose46219

    games get labels en RPG on this game is just another label to attrack customers i suppose.

  • Max18400
    400 posts

    @gloomseeker thing is, I've loved these games since day 1. Assassin's creed was my first xbox game I owned after saving up and buying my xbox 360. This is the first assassin's creed game I've felt totally let down by.

  • Max18400
    400 posts

    @gloomseeker yes to everything you said. Also, I'm a huge history geek. And the viking is is my area of I chose to specialise in at university for 2 degrees, and on top of every single issue with the game, they mishandled the period so badly

  • Max18400
    400 posts

    @gloomseeker some stuff I don't mind, others really irritate me. Such as no one handed swords and loads of plate armour... Like it could've worked. This period is known as the period in England were towns were revitalised, rebuilt and expanded, so they couldn't had greater emphasis on towns and cities, but just chose to instead go with massive empty country sides.
    Tbh, even just adding a few things would improve the game alot. But they won't do it. They could also have made the story line (which don't get me wrong has some great moments) a lot darker. For example the futility of the viking settlements and conquests of wessex. Like look at any history page, the vikings lost. They could've shown this in the game as the time your character was on the losing side. Instead they end the game with, 'oh, the vikings won'
    The reading old English and Latin is weird, but I kind of knew they added it to simply it for gameplay

  • Yesin069
    547 posts

    @gloomseeker

    Ubisoft really wanted to sell us the #LikeAViking instead of #LikeAnAssassin. As always they wanted to please everyone and weren't able to do this right. The only saving for the fact that we cant kill civilians would be if Eivor really becomes an full blown Assassin in one of the DLC. Hopefully in DLC1, so we can play the secons DLC fully as an assassin. This would give Eivor a lot more meaning and then it would make sense that he didn't kill many innocent people.

    They also should have made a cutscene where Eivor says that he doesn't want to kill innocents because vikings clearly did that. It isn't normal that vikings cared much for innoicents so Ubisoft should have given us a proper explanation for the desync. I think it all will end in Eivor becoming an Assassin at one point. Sadly this point isn't in the main game, so i dont think it is really important for Ubisoft. They are more into forcing the viking stuff onto us instead of focussing on the main thing in those games: Assassins!

    Vikings are cool but assassins are also badasses. When i wanted an viking AC back in 2010 i wished to play an viking-assassin, not a viking with some assassins around. It would have been a great contrast when Eivor had joined the assassins in the middle of the game and then had to act contrary to how he acted before. Ubisoft should have let us kill innocent until the point Eivor becomes an assassin. Than Eivor should have started to shift his Jomsvikings into thinking differently and stop killing innocent people. This would have ended in a lot of trouble with other vikings that liked killing civilians.

    Also this would have switched the Jomsviking system into a brotherhood system. Maybe with a skill where you can use them similar to AC: Brotherhood. This would have made Valhalla truly special.

    I really like Valhalla a lot more than Odyssey but it is far away from a great AC game. Ubisoft need to go back to playable assassins and build them into the setting. The setting should just be the playground. The special thing about this franchise are the assassins, so Ubisoft should use them!


  • WhoCares78
    112 posts

    @yesin069 Eivor joining the Brotherhood during the game would have been a great way to explain the desync warning for killing civilians. Also it would have given the character some growth. Eivor at the end of the game is the same Eivor as at the beginning. spoiler That’s the same issue Odyssey had. Kassandra/Alexios is the same character they started out as, there is no personal growth. As for Eivor joining the Brotherhood in the dlc I don’t see that happening. In the game they specifically tell Hytham at one point that working from the shadows is something they can’t do, they need personal glory.

  • AlphaGoose46219
    155 posts

    @whocares78 There is even a chance that Eivor will become a order member, future will tell.

  • Yesin069
    547 posts

    @whocares78

    When they really want to, they could make it possible that Eivor joins the assassins. They should just let Darby McDevitt write this switch. Sadly he isn't involved in the first DLC, so i don't expect major story points there. Just some fantasy stuff with druids...

    Just remember the great character shift from Edward in Black Flag in the end or the deleted speech from Connor in AC3 that would have saved Connor's character from all the hate he got. Even Arno had such great potential in the after the Dead Kings DLC for Unity. After Elise was gone and Arno's mind was free Ubisoft should have given him a sequel, like Bayek who also deserved a sequel.

    Ubisoft just always wastes their characters. They just care about the settings and how good this setting might sell the game. After Ezio all characters are just thrown away. Ubisoft needs to understand that many still love Ezio because he got time to develop and got proper sequels.

    It is beyond me who from Ubisoft decided to cut out this last speech from Connor:


Suggested Topics

Community Details

42
Online
130.1k
Users
22.5k
Topics
116.8k
Posts