Best posts made by TORFINR
@quor321 While I understand what you have in mind I dont agree:
an RPG is meant to have replayability. We're not in the 80s anymore, a clear "Game Over" is not acceptable anymore.
As for those who dont care, it's not their problem anyway, as that matter concerns only those who want to play beyond the main story arc.
And it's my case, and judging from the amount of players who enjoyed Odyssey's endgame for 1000 or up to 1500+ hours, I am not the only one.
Valhalla is not ready for that. Yet. We're preparing, suggesting, imagining its future
I am Taiwanese and I am very angry!!!I needs torture scenes where internal organs and beheaded faces !!!
Here we are.
Are we discussing about immersion or about the need to satisfy our inner sadism?
Dont understand me wrong, I think I understand what you say, but the way you all express it, is ... disturbing.
(especially as I've watched a lot of Asiatic films displaying without any censor that kind of ... entertainments...)
In terms of design, graphics, or overall aspect, Valhalla is good, we can almost say that it is better than Odyssey.
Sadly the game feels empty outside the main story quests. Odyssey has a system of endless exploring, completing contracts, fighting on sea, on land... totally absent from Valhalla.
when the main story arc is played, Valhalla becomes a dead game or at best a badly designed fishing and hunting simulator. Outside fishing and hunting there are nothing, strictly nothing to do in the game.
@ken_koerperich Sorry dude, I might shock you but I dont care, and most of us here dont care, about AC. We're here for a RPG. And we will judge Odyssey and Valhalla as a RPG.
It's called AC Odyssey or AC Valhalla, we see only "Odyssey" and "Valhalla". RPG games. Since Origins, AC games are not AC anymore (the way you understand it, and I respect your opinion/tastes in term of games), and if they still were, I wouldnt be here replying to your post
But you're right! It's all about that: it seems Ubisoft doesnt know what they want to do: do they want us to play an AC game, AKA ligh-RPG game, or do they want their games to be real RPG games? Origins and the Odyssey gave us the feeling that they wanted their games to be RPG. But one step forward, two steps backward, Valhalla tends to go in the "ligh RPG" category. It's not our fault, we're just facing an editor who doesnt seem to know what he wants really.
At the end of the day, you're here because you thought it's an AC game, and you're disappointed, and I'm here because I thought it's a RPG, and I am disappointed too
@b00msie it could be the bugs, yeah, but it's also the lack of replayable content.
In Odyssey some players were complaining about the forts, but the forts do not disappear once cleaned: you can replay them, and you're even invited to do so with the contract system. Is it interesting? Not sure if it is for everybody, but at least it's there (and, for my part, I take a lot of pleasure to have contracts and go in forts around the map for accomplishing them). A majority of players enjoyed those replayable forts and castles. It's basic, it's about "killing" but it's a game which a heavy emphasis on combats, that's what most us were looking for when starting playing.
In Valhalla you have mysteries as an equivalent, which most of the time are not about "killing" but more about "unlocking" stuff (odd in a 'viking game' but it's an other debate). But once the mystery is done, it's not there anymore. It results in the fact that the map of Valhalla is more and more empty and more and more uninteresting when you advance in the game. At the end Valhalla's map is just an empty desert, without quests, without points of interest, in which you can only fish and hunt (for obtaining leather that you cant even sell ....)
The "official ratings" judge only the main story and the overall design/graphics of the game. And for that it's very good, Valhalla is beautiful and the main story arc is correct.
Players (as pointed above, google ratings) on the other hand judge the game as a whole: will I still be entertained in two weeks from now, in two months from now, next year ? ... obviously Valhalla is lacking real content to keep people play the game for more than two months.
Latest posts made by TORFINR
@frenchmustard61 Good points, Bonnes idées
The river raids should have been in England, on the map of the game and not in some random instanced maps unrelated to the game.
They should simply have been repopulated monasteries with army reinforcements and they simply should have allowed us to replay them and incorporate them into a faction/story related thing.
@bielik01 once you've done all the quests for equipment, you unlock a repeatable quests for each trading hub (Egypt, Constantinople, Iberia ...) allowing you to convert resources vs silver (40 to be exact)
Imho it's a really good step in the right direction made by developers.
Let's hope they will continue like that for the siege of Paris.
Any new feature would be a good thing.
But still, I dont know if NG+ would be that good in Valhalla. The game has no secondary quests, and nothing to really explore (forts, camps, in which you can play an "AC game" understand "kill stuff"). Puzzles and mysteries are good (what am I writing here.... "well, for some of us, can be good" ) when played once, but present zero replayability value. Once you've cleaned the poo on the Anglosaxon dude, I guess you dont want to clean the poo on the Anglosaxon dude a second time, do you?!
NG+ was shining in Origins and Odyssey, I fail to see its value in a game like Valhalla.
I can understand what he means, even if I wouldnt express exactly the same way.
When I immerse myself in Valhalla, after a while it feels "correct". That what I experienced recently when finishing the DLC.
But each time I restart Odyssey after it, I have always the same feeling: Valhalla is such a disgrace, a soulless game, a stripped version of Odyssey with astonishing graphics and clunky mechanics.
I must be naive, and I'm waiting for the game to become really good. Time will tell, but I dont hold my breath anymore.
@cosmin-bv I also play the game to relax and not to increase my stress level. For the most part I play on default mode but sometimes stitch to easy mode if I become frustrated (as has happened in some boss fights). But I don't see the mastery challenges at a FU; they have nothing to do with the main game or with the expansion. Rather, I see them as a sop thrown to all those who have been complaining about the lack of challenges. I've tried the mastery challenge, but they just increase my stress level, so to heck with it.
I just hope the devs don't screw up Siege of Paris and make it more like Odyssey, which I hate.
Making it like Odyssey would be for me the best thing they can do. The pinnacle of replayability in the AC franchise, how can it be a bad idea to not copy it
@cosmin-bv I play also on easy for a specific reason: it's not realistic to strike four times in the head, fire three arrows in the stomach and having you target still alive. It's a common problem of that kind of games, and I find that playing on easy makes the combat more realistic, thus bring me more immersion.
But on topic: my humble opinion of the mastery challenge... well, I managed to finish the first quest with three bronze medals, it was fun, but I dont plan to continue. I dont like that kind of "challenge", it's too ... arcade and somehow unrelated to the game and the theme of the game.
I respect those who like it, but it'äs not my cup of tea.
What's the respawn time of the scrolls of knowledge. I'm talking about the scrolls you can buy in any shop for 700 silver and which give you one skill point.
I've noticed that all the shops of the game are linked: when you buy one in a shop, they are not available anymore in the other shops. I've also noticed that you can buy them at least once a day, but is it often?
Thanks in advance if you have information on the matter!