Does anyone else feel like they completely watered down AC Valhalla compared to Odyssey. To me Odyssey will always be one of my all time favourites purely on the size of the game. I know quite a few people complained about the size of Odyssey and Ubisoft wanted to make the players happy but it is happening to a lot of games these days. Games are becoming smaller and easier to cater for the general gamers and not the hardcore gamers. I know a lot of people complain as they don't have the time to sit there and grind the game out with exploring and side missions and so on and I understand that. But it feels like the hardcore grinders are being forgotten about. After completing AC Valhalla I was disappointed. Even when I first travelled to England I said to my friend when I started exploring that the map was empty compared to Odyssey. It felt like a step back.

Then it got me thinking. How much harder would it be to release two different types of games. 1 being completely story driven with minimal exploring (AC Valhalla) and a more expensive version with story, side missions and even more exploring (AC Odyssey) of the same game. Caters for the general gamers and the hardcore gamers

@max18400 I agree it was very disappointing. If you read my reply to the other person Origins was the start of something good. You could see their plans. Big map but empty. Odyssey fixed that. Valhalla ruined it. They tried to hard to make the game graphics stand out but they didnt deliver on the content. As for the whole inaccurate version of vikings I never really delved into the whole viking era so I cant comment on them being inaccurate or not.

@sam_boo26 for me Origins was good but not the best. You seen with Origins where they were going. Big map but unfortunately it was empty. Then Odyssey they stepped it up. A huge map and they actually filled it in. But then supposedly Valhalla had more land mass then Odyssey but it felt as empty as Origins. I enjoyed the story, some what, of Valhalla but not as much as Odyssey. And the biggest thing about Odyssey is the side quests. They actually used their imaginations with them and you could see that. While Valhalla had the characters and the story it lacked everything else that they were working towards from Origins to Odyssey

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.

@paddy234 I can understand your point of view. I never said the graphics were the stand point for me. Or the fighting mechanics, they were a pain, my point is the overal size of the game. The exploration. The grind to clear the map. To visit every location. The endless side missions. Valhalla was too small in that aspect, and now the next one is meant to be a low budget game to get us through until 2022 China, it just seems the games are getting smaller but costing us the same money. I dont want to be spending the same amount of money every game for "better" graphics and less content.

@max18400 I agree it was very disappointing. If you read my reply to the other person Origins was the start of something good. You could see their plans. Big map but empty. Odyssey fixed that. Valhalla ruined it. They tried to hard to make the game graphics stand out but they didnt deliver on the content. As for the whole inaccurate version of vikings I never really delved into the whole viking era so I cant comment on them being inaccurate or not.

@sam_boo26 for me Origins was good but not the best. You seen with Origins where they were going. Big map but unfortunately it was empty. Then Odyssey they stepped it up. A huge map and they actually filled it in. But then supposedly Valhalla had more land mass then Odyssey but it felt as empty as Origins. I enjoyed the story, some what, of Valhalla but not as much as Odyssey. And the biggest thing about Odyssey is the side quests. They actually used their imaginations with them and you could see that. While Valhalla had the characters and the story it lacked everything else that they were working towards from Origins to Odyssey

Does anyone else feel like they completely watered down AC Valhalla compared to Odyssey. To me Odyssey will always be one of my all time favourites purely on the size of the game. I know quite a few people complained about the size of Odyssey and Ubisoft wanted to make the players happy but it is happening to a lot of games these days. Games are becoming smaller and easier to cater for the general gamers and not the hardcore gamers. I know a lot of people complain as they don't have the time to sit there and grind the game out with exploring and side missions and so on and I understand that. But it feels like the hardcore grinders are being forgotten about. After completing AC Valhalla I was disappointed. Even when I first travelled to England I said to my friend when I started exploring that the map was empty compared to Odyssey. It felt like a step back.

Then it got me thinking. How much harder would it be to release two different types of games. 1 being completely story driven with minimal exploring (AC Valhalla) and a more expensive version with story, side missions and even more exploring (AC Odyssey) of the same game. Caters for the general gamers and the hardcore gamers