Best posts made by sblantipodi
I feel that Valhalla is way worse than Odyssey in pretty everything.
Landscapes are all the same, ok we are talking about an historical period where there are only countryside,
but what about Asgard?
Asgard is so "lifeless" when compared to the Atlantis of Odyssey.
Combat system is so boring when compared to Odyssey,
ax, perry, ax, repeat.
Skill tree is a caos, abilities can't be mixed in a combo like in Odyssey and you end using always the same abilities.
I used one or two at most during combat.
Too much things on the map, it happen that you spend 30 minutes finding a point on the map and you end finding some pieces of nichel, seriously?
30 minutes for some nichel?
Differently from Odyssey you don't feel the character progression.
There are so few armour set, so few weapons, and you don't feel the character progression.
I'm an AC fanboy, I played all the games launch day since the first AC but this game is so flat when compared to Odyssey and a big disappointment for me.
I'm an old fan of the series, I played all the AC launch day and always loved the series.
Before Origins I was pretty bored from the repetitive gameplay and the lack of real RPG mechanics and the last three AC was for me WOW.
What is the best game in the last three AC?
To me, Odyssey it's the better game.
1) I love ISU lore and Odyssey was the game with more lore dedicated to ISU
2) way better gameplay. In Odyssey you can do real combos of abilities and the combat was way better in every aspects. I feel that Odyssey is more RPG and I like it more.
3) less dumb repetive missions. In Valhalla there are so many points on the map that adds nothing, it only water down the game.
4) no real reasons to try new weapons, armours, abilities. You can finish the game with the same weapon you started the game, there is no real difference between your initial weapons and the final ones. Same for the armours. What is the sense in this? I stopped trying new weapons and armours too soon because I didn't have a reason to try new things
5) landscapes are too similar by each other, probably at that time that was the real landscape but this is a game, and I like historycal period where there is something to see. I like how good Ubisoft reconstruct buildings. In Valhalla there is only grass and terrain
6) season pass is way worse. In Odyssey every seasons bringed a new game with different colours, different landscapes, new cook abilities, weapons and armours. In Valhalla season pass is just a more of the same addition to a game that is too much long.
Hope that the next AC will be more similar to Odyssey than Valhalla even if I enjoyed Valhalla
Guys I need to admit it, I have degree in computer science but I'm not into history.
At school I studied history but we never studied all those historical figures.
I played all the AC games, and this is the first game that teched me so many new historical figures I never heard before.
Pretty glad to know that I'm more ignorant than what I thought and that I'm able to learn something while playing.
Sorry for my ignorance, thank you Ubisoft!!
@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?
I'm at 50 hours of Valhalla, played 150 hours in Odyssey, I really would like to go straight to the end, the game is boring.
Valhalla is a huge step back over Odyssey.
It's a 100+hours game without RPG mechanincs and without the mighty architectures and landscapes we are used in the AC series.
Sincerely in 50 hours I don't even encountered some impactful characters like in Odyssey, Odyssey was full of impactful characters and more history rich.
I really hope that the next AC will be made from the same people of Odyssey, Valhallha I repeat, is a huge step back.