The problem with the fantasy settings in Valhalla, is that the main "thing to do" there is collect those damn shards. Seems like such a waste.
You have a point with the abilities. I just used the Valkyrie dive and the exploding shot, then right at the end I got into the play dead skill, though I have no idea why I even tried it out since it sounds less fun than it is, haha. I also would have used the wolf skill, but it seemed every time I tried it, it was greyed out, so I stopped bothering.
I'm fine with lots to do on the map, but it's always the same things over and over again, with quite a few I just can't be bothered with or started feeling bored with once I'd done them x times already - curses, in particular - which are well suited to have been tied in with an interesting sequence of side quests, but they are just there for no apparent reason.
Original poster sblantipodi 8 posts
@imaginaryruins I don't get your point, should we compare Valhalla to the original AC game?
Do you know that AC1 born in 2007?
What's your point?
there is no real reasons why to explore all the points on the map since the map is all the same, all countryside xD
I loved Odyssey, I think that it is the AC I loved more since AC2, surely the most funny to play,
Valhalla is no where near to Odyssey in pretty every aspects.
so true. armor is so bad desigend as well.
Given the time period in which valhalla is set they could have really done great things.
Just take a look at the art work of gwent for example: https://www.artstation.com/search?q=gwent&sort_by=relevance
Original poster sblantipodi 8 posts
@asgardian02 they tried to remove all the RPG things that made Valhalla so great.
No need to argue on tastes, I can understand that there are people who prefer a game more RPG oriented and people who prefer a game that is less RPG oriented.
But why do a game that is so long, with so many points of the map if this game is not an RPG at all,
how do you justify 100+ hours if there is no character progession?
GonguHrolfr 9 posts
Totally agree with you.
I love the country and keep roaming it (playing Assassin's Creed Valhalla (OST) Full / Complete Official Soundtrack in the background, because we can't enjoy enough the music with the high frequency put on), though I have nothing to do, but
- upgrade all the gears, so farm money (fishing, sell them),
- try to complete the Fishing Hut Quests (but the fishes that I miss are glitched), so I could get the Stinky but Deadly reward,
- would be glad to Avenge the death of 10 players (and get the Hall of Slain reward), but I can't find any death player to avenge.
Got all the achievements, but Take my hand, The enemy of my enemy, Disorder of the Ancients that are bugged (can't have them, though I've completed the requirements to have them!).
So I go to kill some Saxons and Bandits... for the pleasure of roaming the country.
DuskDragon56496 367 posts
For all Assassins Creed has taken from The Witcher 3 it just couldn't copy it's soul, it's ability to engage the players and literally give them something they've never seen before.The biggest problem for Valhalla at this point is no replayability what soever, there's nothing through the entire game for the player to say "wow, I want to play that again" instead, you're left disappointed, and not just from the numerous bugs within it, but with the lack of a good story or anything remotely exciting to do.not too mention it just sucks to have to keep starting from scratch, you actually dread replaying it not look forward to it. When I played through Odyssey ,I played continuously through all the content as well and I was never bored, and that game started 5 weeks earlier then Valhalla.After 2 months with Valhalla I quit playing,I had to to keep from burning out on so little to do or I wouldn't bother with the dlc. This game is a huge step back from Odyssey and Origins as well.And for people who keep saying "its to early to judge because more content is coming" A game is always judged through the base game because that is where the continuity has to come from to reach the new content. besides the fact that that statement alone pretty much mirrors the opinion the game doesn't have enough to sustain.
I was totally absorbed in Valhalla until I finished it. Then there was nothing to do.
I actually hadn't played Odyssey until after I finished Valhalla. I played all the AC games up to Unity, which I rage quit.
I found Odyssey better is some respects - huge open world, rich environments great character progression. The voice acting was far better IMO. Valhalla's main character, male and female, both sound lifeless and without emotion. Odyssey is funny, the animations full of expression. You feel like they are real people.
I didn't like the endless arms race in Odyssey. You are never really "finished." It's cool the game let's you restart with all your equipment, which makes early play a lot easier but the enemy scaling means you can't really relax about keeping up with upgrading the equipment, which is still insanely expensive. Then they tossed in weight management to boot while you can't just not pick up common equipment. You have to spend time managing it. Valhalla's system is better. Max it out and forget it.
Bottom line, I finished Odyssey then immediately began a new game with the female character to see the differences and make different choices.
Not so with Valhalla. I found the idea of a female Viking character taking out huge Norsemen in single combat to be not believable. The character feels wrong as a female. In Odyssey it felt different because of the fact that the character has Isu blood, which makes them something of a super human. It allowed me to suspend disbelief in a way Valhalla doesn't.
@mannimx heh, while I never play females if I can avoid it (I'm F IRL, want to be something else in games), I think a female Viking is perfectly believable as they actually existed, plus Eivor is meant to be Odin's reincarnation or something, so wouldn't that be the same as Isu blood? What I really don't get is that the proper way to play is meant to be to let the animus decide in which case you are sometimes male and sometimes female ... like what? I don't get it, unless they are suggesting Eivor was gender-fluid.
I love the male VA in Valhalla, but I agree the facial animations in Odyssey are better. I also really like Alexios' VA though, although many complain about him.
BTW I also rage quit unity and haven't tried Syndicate as a result LOL.
Yeah, I tried the "let the Animus decide" thing and it kept me female the entire time until I turned it off.
As for the female Viking thing, I know there were some female warrior types in lore known as Shieldmaidens. There is some doubt about their existence. The majority of scholars think that there were no female Viking warriors as this would have been antithetical to the Viking ethos. Even though women shared equal rights with men (they could own land, initiate divorce, serve as clergy, and run their own businesses), their sphere of influence was largely domestic. Women took care of the home, the elderly relatives, and the children and were unlikely to be tolerated slipping those responsibilities to join men in battle.
a lot better than I did trying to play as a female Eivor. That may have been due to better voice acting and expressions and story telling. I don't know.
The female Viking warrior just felt wrong.
BTW, I haven't tried Syndicare either.
@mannimx Fair enough, but there are the Valkyries from mythology too. A female Greek warrior is a lot less realistic, at least from that time period. There was a theory floating around at some point that pre-Hellenic Greek society was a matriarchy and that they were quite violent, though idk if anyone still lends it credence. I actually wanted to play Odyssey as Kassandra too on NG+, but I couldn't face Alexios being the baddy -
@kreutzgang Agree about the female Greek warrior. I think it was the quality of the voice acting and storytelling that made the difference for me.
I've just completed the story arc with Alexios as Diemos and to me, he's not convincing at all as a bad guy after playing through as him. He's just too good natured and convincing as the good guy to pull it off.
I wish they had put in some missions where Diemos goes with you to eliminate remaining Cult members. I have Diemos as a crew member and when I board an enemy ship I can pretty much let them handle the rest of the crew as I go after the Captain. The fight is over in seconds.
shaiwan43 54 posts
Each person may prefer one artistic style over the other; but if we examine what each game offers objectively; we will come to conclusion that Odyssey just offers a lot more value to the customer; it has orders of magnitude more to do; more to explore; more items to collect, more lore friendly armor; replayable design; much larger map with interesting stuff to see instead of just empty country. It's a vastly superior effort. It's not superior in every way; but overall it's not close.
WildHunt 62 posts
I'll judge when we have all the content in Valhalla. I love Origins and Odyssey, but they are not perfect. Combat in Odyssey eventually became ability spam, like Valhalla is now. Only Origins got it close to feeling somewhat right.
WildHunt 62 posts
@kreutzgang That is your own choice, I'm talking gameplay design. For example, in Odyssey, Maddess of Ares is the only ability you need in any fight, it is an "I win" button, even on the highest difficulty. Origins had nothing like that but Valhalla does have a few abilities that are super useful, I hope they don't have anything coming up that breaks the game.