WhoCares78 112 posts
@yesin069 Assassins in an AC game? That’s crazy talk to Ubisoft. I’ve said elsewhere in this forum Assassins Creed is dead and like in the ‘80s movie Weekend at Bernie’s, Ubi just keeps dragging that corpse out of the morgue each year to get access to the bank account.
I'm now convinced the year off they took between Syndicate and Origins had nothing to do with Syndicate not doing as well as expected at launch. If you remember they tried microtransactions in Syndicate with different gear for the Frye twins. I’m guessing they didn’t sell all that well. So they took a year off to figure out what type of game would appeal to a wider audience. An audience that would be more open to microtransactions. If you look on this forum, you will easily find people suggesting new items for them to put in the store.
Ubisoft wanted a new fan base for the AC franchise. One that would accept a mediocre game and praise it. That would ignore all of the bugs, the broken stealth/fighting/loot system, the numerous historical inaccuracies and anachronisms, the repeating grind, the lack of any actual character development. They sought out people that want to play as a living god slaughtering all in their path with little to no challenge, all while dressed as Sauron. Most importantly they wanted a new fan base that will continue handing over extra money for all of their microtransactions. They got what they wanted, and all it cost them was most of the loyal fans. Those of us who were there since the beginning. Through the good games and the not so good games. We kept coming back with hope each time. Well not so much anymore. With each new step in this direction they take, they lose more fans of the classic AC titles. Unfortunately as long as the new fans keep buying microtransactions, the AC franchise and original fans don’t matter to Ubisoft.
Kormac67 613 posts
@whocares78 Well they moved on and turned their dust-gathering bathroom-hoodie franchise into modern open-world action games. Thus gathering many new customers who don't care about The Old Ways. So who cares.
And you can enjoy the games just as well with zero MTX. I don't care if others buy them, but if it helps keeping up development of new content it's a win.
Outlander1982 123 posts
@yesin069 I guess the sanctuary in ac2 means nothing,3 of the legendary assassins where completely removed and they acknowledged it in a interview lol,yeah we know they existed but..........yeah they didn't not care period.
continue to think nothing was there before Origin,I'm done.
@kormac67 Have to agree the MTX are completely irrelevant at the moment. I've never felt even remotely tempted by them and also really struggle to spend opals and their equivalent. In Valhalla so far I've bought a gnome and an axe with them, both by accident. OFC that will change if they really only make free to play games in future, as they've suggested, as they will then probably design them with the sole purpose of making the games unbearable unless people pay on a regular basis. However, I think people are annoyed that the games remain buggy and glitchy while MTX are churned out weekly. The games are not cheap, so it's understandable players will want a finished product as opposed to the company seemingly being over-concerned with making more profit while leaving the games in a sub-par state. For instance, the stutter while walking or running I've mentioned before in this thread is so annoying it makes me close to quitting the game regularly, and constantly having the cloak back on although it's hidden is also annoying though in a different way, to mention but 2.
Personally I'm fine with the new type of game as long as I can still play an assassin without it feeling outrageously cumbersome and having a character that clearly states they think it's BS. I never play warriors if I have the choice, so being more or less be forced to play one in this franchise of all things really annoys me.
As for the Children of Danu reward. It's indeed better than a shield. I was kind of hoping for a sickle as we seem to be supposed to be using them, but after dual wielding the ones I have, I think I changed my mind as they seem pretty terrible. LOL.
As I said multiple times and as you can find in the internet: the franchise didn't get any bigger after that RPG-switch!!!
AC was always the best seller for them and a new game to top AC3 in sales is still not there. The new formula just made them more money because of more microtransactions. This is the most important point for Ubisoft...more money - not more unique buyers!
@WhoCares78 made some great points there. The problem with games with MTX is that they will never get less in future titles. If we accept them now, they will get more aggressive. Time-savers clearly have an impact on game balancing. The devs need to make this stuff a great option for gamers that dont want to do borign stuff. A better option would be: simply dont implement boring stuff in the game and make every second fun!
When we look at the success of games like Uncharted, The Last Of Us or God of War, there is nothing "anachronistic" about games like that. Ubisoft just took the safest route and made what was currently the trend: make everything an RPG and make it big! If you take out all the useles collectibles and side stuff from Valhalla, Odyssey and Origins you end up with a 20 hour game like the older ones. They also had a bunch of collectibles but they were so useless that I never cared collecting them and focused on the story. Also Valhalla gone too far with their main quest. Over 70% of the main quest should have been side quests in that game.
WhoCares78 112 posts
@kormac67 I get that they moved on. My problem is that they’ve tried to make Assassins Creed a copy of other games that already exist. If I wanted to play those games I would. I buy Assassins Creed expecting to actually play Assassins Creed. Now it’s another generic rpg. The only difference being that Ubisoft still can’t figure out how to make a real rpg. They need to lure developers from other companies that actually know how to make an rpg, but with the current behind the scenes stigma hanging over I don’t see that happening.
While you can play without microtransactions and I do, that doesn’t change the fact that most items released are in the store instead of the base game. The game is still buggy, the stealth is hit and miss, it’s an oversized repeating grind. It’s just not that good of a game. And the $25 dlc seems like it could have been taken right out of the main game while also coming across as oddly disjointed with the main game.
@kreutzgang I’m having that same problem with the game stuttering while I run or try to move fast. It is very annoying and seems to be happening more frequently lately. I could at least tolerate this new game style if it didn’t seem like Ubisoft went out of their way to make a stealthy build impossible. They keep talking about choices while limiting our build choices.
@Yesin069 Exactly. They put microtransactions into Origins and it was accepted because they were just cosmetic. So Odyssey had even more. Now Valhalla is looking like a store hiding behind a game facade. They already are getting more aggressive in pushing the microtransactions, remember Odyssey had a forced grind to push people into buying the boosters. Ubisoft had to go back in and rebalance the game after people noticed the grind could be offset with the booster and complained.
AndrewAtwill 11 posts
I really enjoyed it and I'm really looking forward to the Siege of Paris plus apparently the third DLC - Meteor? - that news might have got a lot of people hyped positively when they heard there will be a third DLC, I know I was.
For me also The Siege of Paris DLC sounds much more interesting than this Druids fantasy stuff. Regarding the artwork we saw for the Paris DLC it will have more AC feeling and the order will also be present. Hopefully this will wrap up Eivors story more and make him into an assassin or templar.
Regarding the third DLC:
This feels like an afterthought. Hopefully this will make the next AC better, because it gives the devs more time. When I look at the name I think this DLC will be the Pharaos or Atlantis-like Isu-DLC with lots of mythological stuff, which makes it uninteresting to me. I always loves the Isu in the first titles because they were mysterious and used in little doses. Now they are everywhere in the games to explain all the fantasy-stuff. In the early games everything was explained with sci-fi technology. Every mysterious thing had an technical explanation. Now we just have werewolves because hallucinations make everything possible...
We already found game files for the meteor DLC which let us think that it will play in Muspelheim or some type of hell. Sounds not interesting to me, like the Pharao DLC in Origins and Atlantis in Odyssey. Meteor will also probably be the DLC where they put their dragon in. I am pretty sure Ubisoft wont let this opinion go away unused...
I read that Ubisoft Sofia is doing the third DLC and that they before were doing a smaller AC title to fill the gap. This would be my prefered way. Valhalla's gameplay is just to faulted in its core that a new DLC wont change anything. Ubisoft clearly will never fix the essential faults of Valhalla because these need to be fixed on an engine level which happens before devs start making things with this engine. Afterwards it is too complicated to fix those issues. This is why a new and smaller AC game would be better. An AC1 Remake is still my dream or a game that plays in the same setting as AC1 and shows the rise of the real assassins. Maybe with Al-Mualim as the lead character. Ubisoft has so many great things they could do with this franchise but sadly they often choose the most mainstream one. Valhalla makes them much money, so make more DLC and microtransactions for that game.
I have almost finished another replay of Origins and it amazes me how good that game is compared to Valhalla (Will not compare with the older games, because of the switch to "RPG"). All side quests tell you something about ancient Egypt, which makes them fun and interesting, while repetitive. It is like Ubisoft went backwards in time. Valhalla mostly looks off, colors are bad, images are unsharp. It can look very good at times, but half the time it looks very bad. The world does not feel real at all. When you touch the water with one toe, Eivor is soaked wet immediately. Birds do not look like birds at all, the sky does not match with the environment and weather, fire does not look that good, etc, etc, etc. Origins looks more like a comic book, but it has a consistent style. I thought the DLC was fun after just finishing it, although I am still confused what it has to do with the assassins. But compared to Origins first DLC, this is not a very good DLC.
I also thought Valhalla was a good (not great) game. Or maybe I just wanted it to be a good game. Only after replaying the older games, you notice how bad Valhalla actually is (Although I still prefer the gameplay over Odyssey). So most probably the last AC game I bought. Probably the last AC game a lot of AC fans bought.
Origins is also my favority game of the newer RPG ones. This game really deserved a sequel in ancient rome with Bayek. I always want to know how the characters ended up and also how they died. What the hell happened to Bayek. Also what the hell happened that Eivor died in Vinland. Why Ubisoft never answers those questions i the main games?
The only things I liked about Valhalla are the bits with the Hidden Ones and the connections to mostly all other titles. In summary: Everything Darby McDevitt wrote himself was great. He was the last one who knowed everything about every game and knew what fans wanted.
Regarding graphics: Origins has the better setting but technically Valhalla looks better. Just the cloth physics is a huge downgrade in Valhalla. You cant top ancient egypt as a setting. Pyramids alone make a whole lot.
On the XBox Series X, Valhalla does look great sometimes, but a lot of times it is a blurry, foggy mess. Origins has nicer effects and details. Fire and water simply do look better there. Also the rain and dripping effects are a lot better. I love how the wind plays with every little detail. That wind looks like a hot desert wind. The sound is really around you and does not feel like you are in a big empty cave all the time (like in Valhalla). I feel like I watch Valhalla through a dirty window with ear muffins on half the time.
I was afraid I would not like playing as Bayek, but I ended up loving the character. The voice actor did great work and the character was believable. In Odyssey the actress who plays Kassandra is great, but her character is written badly. There is no character development at all. The voice of Alexios does not do it for me. Valhalla’s female Eivors voice is over the top for me, I hate it. You clearly hear that her voice is created, not a real normal voice, like in a cartoon. The male voice is very good, but again, there is no character.
NPC’s are somewhat more comic style in Origins, but the whole world is. In Odyssey vegetation does not match the NPC style in my opinion. In Valhalla they try to be more realistic but for me it does not work. It just looks blurry.
When you look at what the npc’s are doing, their normal day to day business is done best in Origins. They actually make the world alive. When you for example drive on a horse, the NPC’s reactions is terrible, but this is also the case in Odyssey. In Valhalla NPC reactions are actually best of the 3 (although still not very video game like, not RDR2 level). Looking at what the NPC’s are just doing in the world, for me the world of Origins is most immersive.
I so much wanted to like Valhalla and Odyssey. I really wanted to see the Viking wold come to life. And I actually always preferred the Greek time period over the Egyptian. But the Egyptian world is done so well, I am now more interested in that time period, then I ever was.
In this video you can clearly see what I mean. Valhalla does has a strange blurry unsharp effect over it. It does look very off or uncalibrated. As if Anvil engine does not handle things very well. In Origins, all is in the same style, Odyssey has a mix of styles and Valhalla simply has the same mix, but then blurred.