0 Likes/6 Replies/95 Views
I always wandered why in your games features that were present in the previous game of the series that were totally okay are completely discarded in the sequel, effectively making it worst than the previous chapter, I always thought that a sequel should be better than the previous game not different. Especially with Valhalla and Odyssey there are some missing features that where present in Origins, for example I noticed that in Valhalla when u are on horse u can use weapons, why? It makes no sense to me, also, you can’t use a one handed sword, I guess Vikings were unable to wield one, but ancient Egyptians and Greece had no problem, same problem with the absence of shields in Odissey. Don’t get me wrong, I get that the point is to change the gameplay style, but we should nontheless get the option, since the mechanic of shield was already successfully implemented, it also shatter the immersion. Plus the transmog for weapon and armor, how is it not in the game from day one? I am actually curious about how hard actually is to “copy paste” a feature from one game to another, I mean I’m sure is not that simple but it doesn’t seem that hard either.
I always have the feeling that Ubisoft could make the best game ever but willingly shoot itself in the foot. Thank you for reading
WhoCares78 112 posts
@captain_slr One of the issues with features appearing then disappearing from game to game is that Ubisoft keeps changing the lead studio on the games. They do so because then they can churn out an Assassins Creed game each year. Which means development time on the games overlap. So features that become popular in one title might be too late to add to the next.
Another issue is that Ubisoft actually does like shooting itself in the foot. Just like Origins easy way of changing between bows. Worked too well and was a system that was well liked...so they had to get rid of that. They’ll make sure can’t have too much fun in their games.
As far as one handed swords, I’m guessing they thought that would be too historically accurate for their reimagined England. So out they went.
Ha yes I forgot to mention the changing of studios, but still feels stupid not to communicate from one to another since they are the same company after all, they are non in competition which is almost what it feels like. Well maybe given enough feedback and time...
WhoCares78 112 posts
@captain_slr I’m not sure they bother listening to feedback anymore. There are some really good ideas in this forum that I doubt will ever be implemented in Valhalla.
I though the aptly named Breakpoint would have taught them a lesson. But Valhalla is just like Breakpoint in so many ways. Features missing from the released product with promises they’ll be added later. Bugs that they are slow to patch up. A lot of pointless objectives that just feel like busy work. More armors in the helix store than in the base game itself.
With their vast resources Ubisoft could do so much better.
A.M.R. 21 posts
I don't have ACV yet but this is so true.
Splinter Cell Conviction you can holster your weapons and walk empty hand do some bad [censored] melee takedowns, after it came SC Blacklist and holstering weapons is gone
Ghost Recon Wildlands you can do empty hand melee takedown and you can holster weapons, after it came GR Breakpoint melee is only with knifes no option to do empty hand takedowns and you can't holster your weapons.
Those are just examples off the top of my head that bothered me with those sequels.