Welcome to discussion
Original poster TheOnlyKanga 5 posts
I didn't start this thread as a comparison of graphics or combat or such things it was purely aimed at the overal size of the games. The size of the maps. The collectables. The side missions. Locations. My point was Valhalla was an empty game compared to Odyssey. The map was empty.
tupacdrift 3 posts
I liked that in Valhalla were not in every corner an Enemy Camp to fight. I found Odyssey a little bit too much Packed. What made the Situation any better was the fact that you can't kill every Soldier with one Kill in Odyssey.
@max18400 Sorry i disagree, Valhalla depicts the savagery of the Vikings. Odyssey dressed up the culture of Ancient Greece to somehow become recognisable and relatable to the woke crowd. They were obviously pandering to a crowd of people. They did the same with Valhalla to the more secular "Viking is cool crowd'' but at least they didn't hide their savagery and brutal nature
@theonlykanga Valhalla has plenty of grind. The difference is, that in Odyssey there was lots to do for people who sink a lot of time into games, but it was actually fun. In Valhalla, it is just mindless grinding. The main campaign is mostly decent, but as I've said many times before, it should have just been a linear game with minimal side content, as it feels like that's what it was designed to be and then slapped into an open world that doesn't know what to do with itself. Even the sieges are linear, and you cannot infiltrate forts that are part of the main story before you do them in the main story (well you can, but the enemies just spontaneously respawn), and after you've done the equivalent part of the narrative, they are allied. How they can market it as having more replayability than Odyssey is beyond me. I tired myself out so much trying to keep playing when there was nothing to do besides occupational therapy on the excitement level of deleting emails, that now I don't even feel tempted to check out the Easter event.
Making two games seems excessive, but they seem to be really bad at satisfying both camps - the storyline only ones and the ones who want to explore everything. The best solution would be a setting, where people can pick "story only" and then have more xp in that option, but those people won't have the side content at all, or just a fraction of it. Apparently people who only wanted to do the main campaign felt irritated by Odyssey as they'd have to do other stuff to progress, whereas in Valhalla, if you do anything outside of the main missions, you will get grossly overpowered at some point. Ubisoft seems to struggle to find a middle ground and seems to suffer from listening too much to complaints (though this forum in particular gives the impression they don't listen to anything at all). So b/c Odyssey had people moaning about having to do side content, they then assumed no one apart from some masochists wants to do side content or something.
@paddy234 I already stated the main story in Valhalla is decent - I actually preferred it - but as for side missions, and side characters, the world events in Valhalla are super watered down, there are way too many of them, and I vastly preferred the system in Odyssey where you actually encountered the same characters again - like Socrates and Alkibiades - and others - and side quests that took more than 1 min to fetch some crap where Eivor is shoe-horned into some goody 2-shoes character that plays nanny for all sorts of dolts. Also, disconnecting us if we accidentally kill suicidal or dumb NPC's that rush into battle like lemmings, after the peasants attacking us with brooms on Odyssey and ending up with tons of mercs after you, is a major downer. In Odyssey, doing side content was fun to me; in Valhalla, it's just repetitive grinding that makes me grow a grudge against the game, and lots of it is obviously just slapped in for no reason - curses, shroom trips after a certain point - and the endless puzzles for chests containing nothing remotely interesting. Not to mention basically 2 hitting bosses at the end of the game if you did any side content.
@kreutzgang Woke in the sense they are pandering to a particular audience, (the far left) and their ridiculous worldview in trying to portray Ancient Greece and it's people as something it certainly wasn't. I don't mind Odyssey however it's as Historical as the Warhammer series and i would have like something more historical. The culture depicted in Odyssey is NOTHING like Ancient Greece, it's way too relatable to a particular audience, the SJW crowd which is why the series while claiming inclusiveness and being PC never had a problem bashing Christianity particularly Catholicism. At least with Valhalla the Vikings aren't dressed up as something they aren't, they are brutal and Savage and the game constantly exposes this, for example listening to NPC's as sing songs about butchering innocents and their views about raiding and looting
@paddy234 Can you be actually specific, as rambling about SJW without concrete examples means nothing. Personally, I don't consider Valhalla to be remotely realistic as regards what we are led to believe about Vikings. As I already mentioned, the world events turn Eivor into a people pleaser, and you desync for killing civilians that actually ran into your blade. Your vikingness consists of burning people's houses down and disrespecting their property and privacy, basically.
@asgardian02 I didn't say the Vikings were more or less Savage than Ancient times, i'm simply stating that to some extent the Vikings were portrayed as the barbarians they were while the Ancients Greeks in Odyssey were portrayed as a morally upright society with similar values to a 20th century society
@kreutzgang I'm not saying the Vikings portrayed here is completely accurate as it certainly isn't and the developers done a very good job of watering their savagery down to make them somewhat approachable by the player however compared to Odyssey and titles before Origins they weren't afraid to also be brutally honest to portray type of savage culture that dominated Nordic civilization which is what i welcome, they still didn't go far enough in my opinion however if they did Noone would want to play as a Viking.
If you don't understand how Odyssey is nothing more than a SJW paradise then thats on you mate, i'd suggest you at least have some basic understanding on what the Ancient Greeks were like and their culture. Odyssey portrays a culture that never existed to make it more relatable to a certain group of people who perhaps wanted to be included and not offended.
@paddy234 alright, you'd rather just be evasive and blame it on me for not getting what you are on about by osmosis. Is killing entire settlements of women "woke"? Or tons of peasants of either gender who caught you stealing? Is tossing children off a cliff because the oracle told you to woke? I could go on. But since I'm supposed to make assumptions rather than you actually explaining what you mean, I'm going to assume you want pagan cultures to be portrayed as extremely brutal, and not to have gay people even if they did.
Kormac67 571 posts
I like both games very much. And I wouldn't call content "grind".
Both games look beautiful, of course vacation-style white sandy beaches have advantages over naturally rainy England.
Both games have not much to do after you are finished. Conquest battles get boring quickly in Odyssey and the random fetch/kill quests are not interesting. But you have new game plus which is a great miss in Valhalla.
Side quests (non-random) were better in Odyssey. The decision to not register "world events" as quests (with quest markers) is regrettable.
Odin's sight and markable treasure dots on the map work better for me than the eagle system.
Caves were repetitive in Odyssey.
Both treasure maps and ostrakas are bad with their mostly useless hints.
Friendly combat actually works in Valhalla, it really bothered me when Kassandra rammed her spear through someone and he said "you have become good".
I miss the huge arrow pouch and craftable arrows form Odyssey. Predator bow is nice, Origins' quick swap is sadly missed though.
Blowing your horn and storming an enemy camp with your buddies is awesome. Now if only you could improve their toughness. Best scrap the whole JV system and make them fully customizable, ideally with gear that actually does something instead of just cosmetics. I prefer raids over ship battles.
Fishing is fun and relaxing.
Kas is lovely, but I like my rough Eivor lady too, raspy voice and all.
Max18400 400 posts
@paddy234 you are joking right? They aren't brutal at all in the game or savage? They're often treated as the liberators in the game, which is the opposite of whst they actually were. They cut out a lot of brutal realities of the vikings, such as human sacrifices, killing civilians during raids, slave trade. Ngl the only brutal character is ivar who's portrayal is so laughable and incorrect it's its own problem.
And I agree with they didn't remake history to make it suitable for a 'woke' audience (which is a wider audience and this rewriting of history is its own complex problem). But it doesn't take away from the fact an expert of ancient Greece (many of whom my friends from university are) can sit back, and enjoy and appreciate odyssey. I cannot do the same for valhalla. There's too much that's overlooked, ignored or just flat out incorrect.
Garbo3 630 posts
Well. I rather Valhalla. Didn't like having loot raining as mana from the sky . Tbh prefer this one. I enjoyed both a lot. They my faves and played all of them apart from one.Am old
@kingaltair02 Can't remember which post you are referring to, and frankly I agree it's dumb to give people a choice at the same time as saying it's wrong and in Ubisoft's case it's especially clumsily done, as the games are advertised featuring the "wrong" characters. Other RPG's have demonstrated you can let people pick gender and even race without telling people it's wrong at the same time by calling them stuff like "The Dragonborn", "the hero of Ferelden", "The Watcher" or whatever. Nonetheless, most RPG's with sequels give choices that are at the same time considered "wrong", so I'm quite used to ignoring what's stated as canon by now and can replace it with my own idea. I'd still rather have options.
Ken_Koerperich 52 posts
1) Factually in accurate, to such a point, especially in Valhalla, it makes playing a chore
2) Disconnect "Animus" if you kill 2 civilians...[censored]? Vikings SLAUGHTERED and then enslaved tons to be sold....so, makes game boring....
3) Really, Eivor, before I even get to the "3rd" story, is bopping his "brothers" wife....Ugg, BORING!
4)Odyssey IMO had better combat. More fluid, but hey, I used dual daggers/bow....Here, using a dagger is stand in one spot and go stabby stabby and 9/10 times it's into thin air...
5)Can't craft our own arrows....bleh!
6)Story for both was MEH!
7)As stated earlier, [censored] happened to the BOUNTIES? Loved trying to evade or take on 5 BH's @ once...
8)Gear selection for stats....Odyssey was pretty good as you could chose pretty well for your build. Valhalla, you really can't. You have to chose "close" to what you want and survive with it. Don't even get me started on the crap..py weapons buffz....UGG!
9)Upgrading in Odyssey went fairly smoothly....Valhalla, OMG, for the life of me, I can't find any cloth....Let alone...Raids are way to few.....you do everything you can up to P200, and then you're stuck for 50 more levels before you can raid again....The add on Raid is a joke...I dgaf about some stupid set I'll never wear, or "mods" for my long boat that I NEVER use....
10) If Ubi makes another, I seriously hope they rethink the game, and get away from stupid Hack n Slash/MTX bs....Go back to Assasssin's(!) Creed.....
Oh, last thing...stealth in both was pretty crappy.....one you use a spear to teleport kill....the other, you get seen in 2 seconds unless you got it on NOOB setting......rather blows...