Welcome to discussion
How often is it needed to get said here? Valhalla has important lore bits and pushes the story forward. It isn't the best game in the series and no one said that. But it is a better AC because it has some types of assassins in the game (at least) and tries to bring things like social stealth and hidden blades back (not done great but they try).
Most AC fans have no problem with changes. The problem is Odyssey and the devs of this game. Furthermore Odyssey is hated and denied by most (i said MOST, not ALL) AC fans because it is too filler and crazy, without any great character that will stay in mind. If you love Kassandra than this is great but most AC fans would delete every memory of her from their mind. In other forums their isn't even that big of a dicussion that gets repeated daily. Odyssey should be a spin-off! This is what even a lot of Odyssey fans say. This forum here seems to be full of those Odyssey lovers.
Hopefully Ubisoft gives Quebec their own IP or they build on Immortals so the Odyssey fans can play those games. I remember the times where people cried about Desmond and why he is so annoying and after his deaths they want him back because it got even worse.
Now everyone wants numbers, builds and bullet sponge enemies. When they get a Odyssey 2 like game they will say it is too grindy.
It also has nothing to do with nostalgia. When you want to see how devs should modernise IP's look at God of War (2018). I like AC do develop and be modern but don't ever forget the roots of those games. Stealth + Parcour + Combat! The early AC games had very bad game mechanics and no crouch buttons for example. Modern technologie and gameplay design could improve all those core pillars and add some RPG mechanics and other up to date stuff. But Ubisoft is more focused on triying to rip-off Witcher 3, than to make AC their own again. Ubisoft don't care about those roots, they gone so far that they made an Assassin's Creed without assassins at all (Odyssey).
Can't you just agree that Odyssey should be a spin-off title? I don't understand why you guys are so fixed on thinking AC-hardcore fans should like an AC game without assassins and hidden blades, in an era where there was not a single assassin living or the brotherhood founded. I also don't understand what is fresh about Odyssey? They stealed all the stuff from every game and mixed everything into one game and put AC on it. Then they made the game they wanted to make in the first place (Immortals).
@yesin069 unless you can prove that the majority of "real AC fans" dislike Odyssey, I really think you should stop saying it as it's pure conjecture. Even if you have a majority in x community or whatever, most gamers don't even use forums etc, and you are as likely to find ones where the opposite is said. And yes, I've read your arguments, but it still doesn't change the fact that if we are going to be purists, Valhalla is the least assassin game to date, having the hidden ones or a pointless stealth system just won't change that, and you can actually play Odyssey as an assassin, even if it makes certain aspects of the game like conquest battles a pain in the butt. In addition to that, AC fans now include people who started playing at Origins and later, you'll just have to live with that as at this point it would be a dreadful move for Ubi to revert to classic AC games and lose all of those players. The most you can hope for is that they actually allow us to play as proper assassins in future instalments, without it being a stupid nonsense pain in the neck. When we say we prefer Odyssey or that Valhalla should have built on it, we mean from a gameplay perspective, not that it's better lore wise. I do agree it was mistitled, but irrespective of that, it's simply a much better game than Valhalla, even when it comes to playing as an assassin.
Considering you haven't even got very far in the game, I think you should actually finish it and then see if you still think it's that great. I also legit thought it was better than Odyssey until I was over halfway through, which is when you start getting dumb OP and the repetition gets to you.
TORFINR 331 posts
Cant wait for next week : I'm eager to start beta testing 1.2.0!
Patricia81994 113 posts
Cant wait for next week : I'm eager to start beta testing 1.2.0!
Then i'm looking forward to your response here if this latest patch actually works for once.
More likely 1.1.2!
Let's wait and hope for the best!
Of course i can't prove it. It is just a feeling from the most comments and videos made from different people regarding this topic. If i see all people i know and watched dislike Odyssey and write down why they dislike it, then it would be strange to come to the conclusion that Odyssey doesn't had a problem with some AC fans and had split the camp.
For me every AC felt like work in the end because of Ubisofts bloat formula and all the collectibles and repetitive work. So i expect the same for Valhalla.
Even from the little i played Valhalla i got more interesting lore bits than in the whole game of Odyssey. So i am pretty sure i will like Valhalla more than Odyssey. I don't like the fact that we got no playable assassin for three games now.
Even if Odyssey had better stealth gameplay (because enemies don't spot you as fast), there is zero assassin feeling. The fact that there are hidden ones that tought Eivoer social stealth and the leap of faith alone, gives Valhalla more AC feeling.
"AC-fans" mostly liked Origins and had no problem with it. The problems started rising and coming to my ear with Odyssey. Sadly it isn't always that clear for everybody who made which game. This is why it would better for everyone to split the series into main series and spin-off-series and write down the devs of those games more prominently (Ubi Montreal and Ubi Quebec). This is also why people are surprised that Valhalla changed so much compared to Odyssey. When you compare Origins to Valhalla it doesn't change that much, which should be obvious because the same devs made it.
I also know that all the studios work together but the lead studio always makes all the creative decisions and the others just help.
This also shouldn't excuse the lack of features that were patched into Origins. It had NG+ so Valhalla should also have it from the get go. Valhalla also has a transmog system for Jomsviking armor, so it should be there vor Eivor as well. LEvel scaling was also a toggle in Origins and should be in Valhalla from the start. No need to sell us the same stuff with patches and want to be praised for giving us "free content".
I think Valhalla is the first AC in germany this is FSK18+. The games before were 16+. Maybe because all the flying heads...
I don't look that much at the FSK or PEGI ratings. But when i get the feeling that a game was forced to be PEGI12 or 16 just to please a wider audience i am very annoyed.
AC games should always be 18+ and should never try to dial back nudity or violence just for that. AC games do have the option to disable blood for everyone who dislikes this stuff.
Horizon felt a little bit forced to get it's 12+ rating in germany. You mostly fight robots but when you fight humans the blood looks like some red air or spit. Not that i love seeing blood (i actually can't look at blood in real life) but i prefer games like Witcher 3 that are not just 18+ because of nudity and blood but also because is tells stories that touch on some grown up topics like racism and alcoholism.
Valhalla should be much more darker - being a viking game. Vikings usually tortured people and were very brutal. Not that i want Eivor to be like that but i didn't see such brutal things in Valhalla (maybe they come later but i don't think Ubisoft won't go into such topics because they always want to be political correct).
Asgardian02 1932 posts
certainly would have been nice if there were options where you could have chosen to take more dark route with eivor
Vikings also [censored] women, but ofcourse thats something you cant put in a game. Not that i wanted that, just saying.
Would have been cool if i could have chosen to be on th order side and then hunt the hidden ones down.
anyway its always so political correct and the fact that it has to follow history kinda hinderce the entire experience.
I prefer having a character with an actual character in AC. I don't want to be one extreme in one cutscene, and then the other extreme in the other. This was what killed Odyssey for me also. The decisions should always be gray, not black and white. Eivor is a viking but he should try to be different and not murder everyone. Like Edward i would like to see some change in him. I just want to make decisions like Geralt but not those stereotypical black and white ones that Odyssey gave us.
I don't think Valhalla will be much better than Odyssey in this regard but at least i feel like Eivor has some character. He will not go down in history as one of the best in AC but he seems deeper than Kassandra.
Let's see how he will end after both DLC...I think at some time he will be a hidden one. It would be sad if this impoirtant change comes in paid DLC but Odyssey also had important story bits in it's paid DLC only.
@yesin069 the dreaded finishers are pretty brutal, and there's at least one brutal Viking character. My favourite character actually, not because of his personality, he's just more interesting than many of the others. At the end of the day, teenagers are playing 18+ games by the time they are 16 at the very latest anyway. IDK whether the gory stuff gave it the 18+. Usually it's sex that's the deal breaker, not violence, but in Valhalla it could also be drug use.
longjohn119 474 posts
@hroozenbeek My definition of "season" in a game is a time limited event. Like in Diablo 3 you have 3 month seasons where you can create and level a new character and get special perks available only for seasonal characters.
There are also games where you have to buy a season pass to participate.
The AC DLCs are not time limited so the word "season pass" makes no sense.
Like a lot of things these days it's just a marketing buzz word .... It's like "The Internet of things" which is just a buzz word, I was doing internet enabled sensor networks and HVAC/lighting/alarm controls and monitoring long before someone came up with that buzz word ..... Or one of the dumbest of all time, calling 2160p 4K or worse calling 1440p 2k when neither oif the dimensions are close to 2000 ...... For 50 year professionals measure video resolution vertically and then some marketing guy turns it all upside down and starts measuring video resolution horizontally because "4k" sounds better than 2160p ..... There is no other reason for it
Marketing is nothing but Corporate Propaganda, plain and simple .... It's all about emotions and not about facts and reason
I don't think that a huge decision like this will be in our hands. Maybe Eivor will be mentioned in future titles and it is important if he was an assassin or not. Maybe we will get our link to AC1 and get to know in some future title that Eivor trained some guys that then moved to the middle east and founded the brotherhood with Altair there.
In the end this is still AC and huge story decisions don't go well with the lore. Just smaller decesions in the choosen historical time periods are possible and i understand why. I also like this approach more for AC. It gives us some decisions but still has it's fixed stroyline over all.
I mean the assassin brotherhood, not the hidden ones.
Let's see what thy have in mind for Eivor. I really hope we get a little AC1 connection after this Origins trilogy. I didn't finish the main game, so i don't know exactly but when both DLC are out we well have a better complete picture.
I think they just wanted to tell the Origin stories of both sides. Truly the future games will switch back having assassins and templars (the game is called Assassin's Creed in the end). For me they should have told the whole Origins story in the game called Origins. No need for three games with no assassins. In the end of Origins they should have shown how the time passes and how the hidden ones became the assassins and also how the templars started. If they focuses more on telling the Origins story in a game called Origins it would have been better. Also the second DLC should have been the big connection to AC1, not some mythological non sense.
Hopefully we get this link now in Valhalla when both DLC are out...
@yesin069 yeah... origins should have tells us the full story of both sides, but sadly they missed the oportunity, when they got even 1 thousand years back from origins and give us a lot of nonsenses in odyssey, and now in valhalla i believe they are going to tell us the origins of the templars, wish they got more in deep on this.. but somehow, in the wiki it says it was cain the creator of the templars .....
also seeing that the templars were created in frances, i believe we are going to see the real origins of them, in the siege of paris dlc