Assassins Creed Origins Vs. Assassins Creed Odyssey Vs. Assassins Creed Valhalla

The best game?

  • Assassins Creed Origins (2017)

    Votes: 84 50.6%
  • Assassins Creed Odyssey (2018)

    Votes: 66 39.8%
  • Assassins Creed Valhalla (2020)

    Votes: 16 9.6%

  • Total voters
    166

Bragr

Member
Assassins Creed Origins
- Perhaps the best setting of any Assassins Creed.
- The voice actor is very good, makes Bayek cool and the story passable.
- Hack and slash combat, poor health indicators (you get hit and die out of the blue).
- 2 great DLCs that include the origin story of the Assassin brotherhood.
- A bit bloated.
- 75% of the missions involve clearing out a fucking military camp. The game needs a lot better mission design.
- And since so many missions involve going somewhere, it means you are going back and forth a lot. Fetch quest galore. That's an issue with all these games.
- Long distances to travel and using fast travel means you have to watch the loading screen for too long on the PS4 and Xbox One. (I say this because most played it on the PS4, there are also a lot of performance issues on the old platforms, pc versions and new consoles are far superior in running these games).

Assassins Creed Odyssey
- Does not have the meticulously crafted world as Origins, more copy and paste with a lot of pointless nature, too many hills and cliffs with nothing going on, constant slow climbing with almost no flat landscapes (I get Greece is like this, but still).
- The boat and ocean add a new element to the game, even though it does not live up to the ship in Black Flag and there are way too many other boats spawning everywhere all the time.
- Mindblowing vistas, you can see almost the entire map from several mountain tops, a sense of freedom and openness very few games can rival.
- Alexios is bad and Kasandra is OK, but it would be better if they focused on one main character, they should have skipped Alexios and don't let people waste their time on an inferior character.
- Story is weak, but gets weaker if you pick Alexios, as he sounds like he is trying to be funny all the time. He never sounds serious for some reason. Kassandra is better and more serious, it helps with some of the quests.
- The same issue around mission design as Origins, revolving around clearing out military bases over and over, but not as extreme as Origins in this regard.
- Incredibly annoying mercenary system, always hunted by warriors that come at the worst times.
- The game scales as you level up, making you feel like you are never getting stronger than your enemies.
- It's very very bloated.
- Notable change in the combat system from Origins, a lot of new combat abilities make it interesting as you gain new abilities.
- Unsatisfying abrupt ending after a massive adventure.
- Ok DLCs.

Assassins Creed Valhalla
- The biggest and best-looking Assassins Creed map ever, one of the best-looking games of the previous generation.
- I really don't understand how they built this in 3 years, some of the cities are completely mindblowing in terms of architecture and detail. Jorvik is incredible to witness.
- Absurdly bloated, one of the most bloated triple-A games ever. I swear half the game has no point to it other than extend playtime.
- They go with the dumb "double-character" approach from Odyssey rather than focusing on one character like Bayek.
- Story falls very flat.
- Ships are mostly used to sail rivers, which is not very interesting. The Viking ship part of the game is not good enough.
- They like to hide treasures and stuff underground, and if you are clearing out the map, it's endlessly annoying to run around looking for a way into some of these caves.
- They fixed the insane loot situation from Origins and Odyssey, where you get thousands of bad weapons clogging your inventory.
- Even though it's not as cool as I wished it was, I like that there is a base (Ravensthorpe) to come back to.
- New activities, like the stranger missions, is a welcome addition.
- That said, it's so big that almost any new activity gets tiresome, from stone balancing to mushroom puzzles, to eradicating evil curse emblems.
- Good DLCs, Dawn of Ragnarok is really good.
 

Karak

Member
I think I have now spent almost 150 EXTRA hours in each for the walking the Walk videos. But for just playing and enjoying Odyssey strikes a cord that isn't matched for me by the other 2.
Getting to talk to some devs on the making of these, and Watchdogs strangely enough, has really made me rethink how much Ubisoft does and take a lot of what they make in a different light
 
Last edited:

Markio128

Member
James Franco GIF
 

Laptop1991

Member
Origins and Odyssey over Valhalla , but i like those games for different reasons, Origin's wasn't a demi god superpower game like Odyssey, so i preferred the combat in Origin's but liked Odyssey's story and world more, Valhalla, even though i've put a lot of hours into it, is a bit of a let down, i half enjoy it as compared to the other 2, the story isn't that good and too many meaning less activities, and some mechanic's aren't that great, i love the world's though and traversing through the game, especially England.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa83

Member
I wasn't an Assassins Creed guy until I bought Origins on a whim. I was blown away. I liked Odyssey but the fact that they took out the shield irritated me. C'mon the main characteristic of Greek soldiers during the City State period was the Hoplon shield.
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Origins has the best game world (because it's ancient Egypt), but I liked Oddyssey a lot too. Cassandra was a great character.

The games are getting too bloated though. I was able to finish Oddyssey plus all DLC in about 120 hours, I only played through one Oddyssey DLC because I did't look forward to the prospect of spending even more time with the game after 120-140 hours. I've yet to finish Valhalla's main game after 160 hours on the clock. This shit is getting ridiculous. Completing such large games to feel like work instead of having fun after doing the same things over and over again.
 

F0rneus

Tears in the rain
Origins is okay but Alexios is the best character of any AC game. He needs his own spin off. You who chose casandra chose very wrongly.
Kassandra is the canon main character. That's why she's in
Valhalla and not Alexios.

Anyway Odyssey>Valhalla>Origins

All good games. Well Odyssey was actually pretty fantastic to me. My dream AC was ancient Greece with a female protagonist and shit, it happened!
 
Last edited:

TheShocker

Member
I played all three. Put a good amount into Origins and Odyssey, but never beat them.

Forced myself to complete Valhalla but my god was that a long drawn out and boring game. Beautiful and my favorite locale of the three. But Jesus. I had to move it off my HDD because I was so sick of wading through it.
 

SolidQ

Member
Finished yesterday last chapter in Valhalla. Full game 150hr on max difficult.
So i can say Odyssey >>>> Origin ~ Valhalla.
P.S Alexios bad because Kassandra is canon. Alexios just bonus who wants play male character
 

Aenima

Member
Origin is the best game, but i enjoyed my time more with Valhalla.

Origin is the more balanced game, decent story, decent lenght, decent amount of side content.

Odyssey, has a trash main story but has some very decent side quests. Other side content is just bloat and the map has very little diversity, its pretty much 1 biome the entire game.

Valhalla, has the best map wirh lots of varied biomes, best lore, but the main story is the worst, and side quests are also too short to be worth doing them. Like Odyssey the side content is just bloat, but i enjoyed alot developing the settlement.
 
Last edited:

Reizo Ryuu

Member
Valhalla easily just for the fact you can do 95% of the game in stealth and they removed the garbage borderlands loot overload; can't even go back to the others because of all the bs level gating.
 

damidu

Member
its downhill from the first game forward
and even that one is more of a molehill
 
Last edited:

Denton

Member
Watch Dogs 1

But ok, ok...I guess Valhalla, since it had that amazing moment after you discover identity of the final cultist and this amazing song plays


Plus the england map is gorgeous and I really liked male Eivor.

That said, Kassandra is probably the best protag of the three.

And Origins had really nice looking Egypt, very detailed, but Bayek was..bland and so was the story and mission design.
 

Ol'Scratch

Member
Origins was special.
I could wander around just loving how amazing everything looked.
Valhalla is great and fun but as mentioned just bloated AF
 

Raven117

Member
Origins had the best story for me...So, that.

I liked the setting Vahalla and Odyssey are about tied for different reasons.

Origis was actually good. The other two were alright...worth a play through if you didn't have anything else to play but that was about it. No AC game has reached the heights of Black Flag or AC2
 

Arachnid

Member
Origins had the best exploration, story, and main character of the three. I miss Bayek. We've had to settle for mediocrity like Kassandra (slightly better as Alexios, but still meh) and Eivor since. :/
 
Origins i enjoyed the story. For whatever reason i thought the Bayek arc was good. Obviously Egypt looks amazing. But combat sucks. Exploration sucks because the game holds ur hand and tells u where everything is. How many enemies there are etc. The game will bug you about using the eagle for everything the whole 80 hours. Not to mention u can climb everywhere so theres really no reason to use ur brain or parkour. There are no good HUD options. And just in general the game feels so basic. Once the story was over i was bored to tears because theres no variation in the gameplay at all. Heck Assassins Creed 1, the first ever game had more variety. There is one thing to do in Origins, clear out bases/encampments. Rinse repeat
 
Last edited:

Mr Hyde

Gold Member
Valhalla is the first AC I've fully enjoyed so far. Love the setting with Norse mythology, Eivor is a good character with a lot of heart and it has a lot of variety now that Ubi updated it so much. The graphics are gorgeous, the world events are fun and builds on the lore in a good way and exploration and free climbing is also really fun. The paid expansions are solid adventures too in their own. Wrath of the Druids had a very good and compelling story that had me absorbed to the end. But it's definitely bloated and could use some trim. The excessive amount of mtx is annoying too. It doesn't get in your face and it's optional but I think shit like that should be in game.
 
I think I have now spent almost 150 EXTRA hours in each for the walking the Walk videos. But for just playing and enjoying Odyssey strikes a cord that isn't matched for me by the other 2.
Getting to talk to some devs on the making of these, and Watchdogs strangely enough, has really made me rethink how much Ubisoft does and take a lot of what they make in a different light
Odyssey is the best once you factor in the insane dlc as well ( they made an open world gow game as a dlc wtf). Besides all that, there is a sense of travelling through what feels like an entire continent that is unmatched. I walked through a bustling Athens and sailed all the way to the island of Lesbos with no loading screen or squeezing through cracks. Epic.
 
Only played Origins so far and am about to start Valhalla soon. The first was nice and all with it really making me miss Tomb Raider with all the hidden rooms full of treasure.
 

kubricks

Member
I much prefer the world of Origin, but in terms of system Odyssey is a lot more refined.

I'd take Origin overall because Bayek and Egypt.
 

Larxia

Member
I really liked Odyssey and I kept hearing people saying how Origins was better, so I tried it and it was a really bad idea to play it after Odyssey.
I found it incredibly boring and repetitive, I really don't see how people can prefer this episode. The gameplay is so much more limited, it's basically like if you played odyssey in the most basic way possible, only with basic attacks and never using any abilities, which would have made AC Odyssey really boring too.

I really liked the amount of abilities you had in Odyssey, you could keep the gameplay really varied and do very different builds, and that warp strike attack like noctis from FF XV was so satisfying, how you could also chain it and do combos.

In Origins it's just... basic attacks, blocks / dodge, and that's it. I also found the rest of the game much more tedious, there are so many sidequests all the time, that you are kind of forced to do too because if you play one or two story missions, you're already under leveled for the next one and need to do 20 more sidequests to be able to continue.

I thought Odyssey, while not being an AC game really, was a really cool action rpg, even with the ubisoft bloat. Origins is just ubisoft bloat without all the cool stuff from Odyssey.
 

Bragr

Member
Some interesting tidbits from Wikipedia:

- Origins sold over 10 million.
- Odyssey also sold over 10 million and its revenue was 170% higher than Origins because of microtransactions.
- We don't have numbers for Valhalla, but it made over 1 billion and is the second-highest-earning Ubisoft title.

Ubisoft talked about this openly, that through the excessive length and several DLCs of these games, these open-world Assassin's Creed games have kept players playing for a very long time, which increases purchases of microtransactions.
 
Top Bottom