I don’t knowZ. I liked Valhalla better.
odyssey didn’t do much for me. Both aren’t as good as origins.
black flag remains the best.
Agreed. To add a few thoughts, AC as a franchise has so much potential. They could definitely benefit from cutting down the bloated features, and focus more on narratives, similar to red dead 2. I mean, they cant compete against the details of Rockstar but they could definitely tone down the scale, and up the overall story driven experience, plus they have a capable engine too. The closet Odyssey has gotten to, for me personally, was The Witcher 3, but it could never surpass the Witcher's charm. Witcher has so much heart and soul poured into it, including the side quests. People didnt play Witcher for its combat. I think AC should stop half assing it and go either full RDR or full RPG.The combination of the setting and great controls honestly do make it a joy to play. Even though the game itself can be kinda weak at times. It's actually a relaxing game to just run around in because you really feel like you're in Ancient Greece. Origins is similar but Ptolemaic Egypt doesn't have the same relaxing vibe. The atmosphere is a little more foreboding in that game. I haven't played Valhalla but I don't like the aesthetics at all. It looks so dreary.
Agreed with this. Ultimately, if it’s the formula that doesn’t do it for you, then none of them will work. They are by and large the same thing but different flavors.This might be one of the best examples on this thread of why they should just play it themselves.
Many like Odyssey, but many like Valhalla, many like Origins, its just too mixed to really have a 100% play this or that. So I feel they should just play it and find out for themselves.
Some context: Used to love AC (Ezio trilogy was my favorite), but Valhalla was the first AC I played since Black Flag. I really liked it for the first 20 hours, but I soured on it shortly after. I didn’t like the huge focus on combat and large scale battles. The side content was bland, and I just felt like the game wasn’t offering nothing new or exciting that I hadn’t already seen within the first few hours. I ended up quitting the game and just looked up the ending on youtube.
The recent 60 FPS patch for Odyssey makes me want to finally give it a chance though. The setting looks perfectly suited for an AC game, and Cassandra seems like a stronger character than Eivor. How different is it from Valhalla?
It really does have a lot of potential. It's the closest thing we have to a gaming time machine right now. And as visuals improve, the experience should as well. I'm eager to see what a full PS5/XSX generation AC title will look like. Still holding out hope for a Roman Empire game. Could even have a Bayek sequel where he witnesses the change from Roman Republic to Empire.Agreed. To add a few thoughts, AC as a franchise has so much potential. They could definitely benefit from cutting down the bloated features, and focus more on narratives, similar to red dead 2. I mean, they cant compete against the details of Rockstar but they could definitely tone down the scale, and up the overall story driven experience, plus they have a capable engine too. The closet Odyssey has gotten to, for me personally, was The Witcher 3, but it could never surpass the Witcher's charm. Witcher has so much heart and soul poured into it, including the side quests. People didnt play Witcher for its combat. I think AC should stop half assing it and go either full RDR or full RPG.
This.For me personally I'd argue Odyssey ruined Valhalla. I can't bring myself to finish Valhalla whereas I completed Odyssey and all its dlc. I say this as someone who doesn't even necessarily dislike Valhalla, I just think Odyssey is a much more superior game in every way.
I liked Odyssey a lot. A long game if you explore, id regularly take breaks and come back to it. I also liked origins.
Vahalla....i find boring and dull. There is NOTHING interesting going on in the game. Its not even fun to roam around in IMO.
It feels like work to play, if that makes sense.
Also...the game is cheap enough to be worth the risk of trying i think.
Odyssey has a better protagonist (Kassandra) a better story (the ones who came before AKA Isu) and better combat because the protagonist is basically a god. Also I was not a fan of naval battles on previous games but this time it's entertaining as f. My only complain is the loot system (too many pointless armors) in my opinion it's one of the best AC games ever. But you need the dlc to experience the whole game, because the dlc is basically Assassin's Creed Odyssey Part 2.
I kinda agree but the tone is very different. Except for some small crumbs of hope Valhalla is genuinely depressing imo. Both Origins and Odyssey feels much more positive, more humor and you’re not greeted as a plague of invading shitheads and go around burning down people’s homes, in Origins you’re even greeted as a hero at times, Bayek was awesome, and Kassandra had tons of charm and some comical scenes and the chatter with Barnabas was uplifting.Agreed with this. Ultimately, if it’s the formula that doesn’t do it for you, then none of them will work. They are by and large the same thing but different flavors.
Some context: Used to love AC (Ezio trilogy was my favorite), but Valhalla was the first AC I played since Black Flag. I really liked it for the first 20 hours, but I soured on it shortly after. I didn’t like the huge focus on combat and large scale battles. The side content was bland, and I just felt like the game wasn’t offering nothing new or exciting that I hadn’t already seen within the first few hours. I ended up quitting the game and just looked up the ending on youtube.
The recent 60 FPS patch for Odyssey makes me want to finally give it a chance though. The setting looks perfectly suited for an AC game, and Cassandra seems like a stronger character than Eivor. How different is it from Valhalla?
I wish the whole series just switched from Assassins Creed to Black Flag. Kinda like what happened with modern warfare. I want Black Flag 2.Odyssey was definitely better than Valhalla, imo, but neither really felt like an AC game to me. Good games, regardless, but not great.
I wish AC devs would get back to releasing games like Unity, Syndicate, and Black Flag.
I wish the whole series just switched from Assassins Creed to Black Flag. Kinda like what happened with modern warfare. I want Black Flag 2.
Also Unity sucked hard. Origins Odyssey and Valhalla were all better than that shitpile.
Kassandra is one of the best AC protagonists. Worst personality goes to Connor with Arno Dorian (aka discount Ezio) and the twins from Syndicate being tied for a close second.Kassandra has no personality. She is as bland a protagonist as you can get. Eivor has more personality. As for story? Its literally the worst in the entire franchise. The most amount of plotholes in any AC game, absolutely insulting treatment of the setting and historical aspects (not that Valhalla is much better, but it certainly wasn't worse).
Game was a shitshow. Bloated, pointless, and devoid of any real direction. It is the epitome of skin deep AAA gaming.
Agreed. But it just seems to me that if fundamentally the whole thing doesn’t work for you, what you are describing won’t make a difference. But what do I know?I kinda agree but the tone is very different. Except for some small crumbs of hope Valhalla is genuinely depressing imo. Both Origins and Odyssey feels much more positive, more humor and you’re not greeted as a plague of invading shitheads and go around burning down people’s homes, in Origins you’re even greeted as a hero at times, Bayek was awesome, and Kassandra had tons of charm and some comical scenes and the chatter with Barnabas was uplifting.
The loot system is different too. Origin’s loot felt mostly balanced. Odyssey’s loot is kinda overkill, you get new stuff all the time, but personally I had no real issues with it tbh. Valhalla’s loot is, well where is it?
How you like the open worlds is a matter of taste though. For me it was too much samey sand areas in Origins. And I thought England in Valhalla was boring and going back to muddy waters after Odyssey was a step back. Odyssey was mostly perfect for me, as said before it was like going on a sunny vacation, but this might have to do with me living up north.
Where Valhalla shines though is in the combat, felt tight, best of these three by far, and I liked the zealots, I liked building Ravensthorpe too. It wasn’t all bad. Just not as great as Origins and Odyssey as a complete package.
I wasn't a fan at all. Wayyy too much bloat.Last DLC atlantis is the best.
This to me was the ultimate reason why I considered Origins to be the better game over Odyssey. Origins locations were unique and you really felt like you were taking a tour of Roman-era Egypt and most locations from Siwa, to Memphis, to Alexandria, to Cyrene and the desert all had their distinctions.It's a hard one, the combat is more refined in Valhalla, and the game looks a lot better, but both have a lot of the same issues. It's 3 times as big as it should be, most of the content gets fucking repetitive beyond belief, and a lot of the cities are just copy-pasted. About 95% of the buildings in Odyssey are just copy-pasted around the map.
These games are like if you expanded the ocean in Black Flag 200 times but didn't add any new activities, instead you just recycled small islands where you collect chests and those shark diving areas over and over, to the point where you have to clear out 2000 small islands and 400 shark diving areas.
Origins might be older, but it's the only game that has somewhat of a story, and Bayek is a fantastic protagonist, miles better than bland Eivor and corny Alexios. But it still has too many bland side quests, and the combat is a lot worse than Odyssey and Valhalla.
Honestly, go with Syndicate. Better game.
Kassandra is one of the best AC protagonists. Worst personality goes to Connor with Arno Dorian (aka discount Ezio) and the twins from Syndicate being tied for a close second.
This to me was the ultimate reason why I considered Origins to be the better game over Odyssey. Origins locations were unique and you really felt like you were taking a tour of Roman-era Egypt and most locations from Siwa, to Memphis, to Alexandria, to Cyrene and the desert all had their distinctions.
Odyssey looked great in many places, but it didn't quite get that vibe. I never felt like I was touring ancient Greece.
LOL at comparing Kassandra to Fallout 4's voice actor.She is literally devoid of any personality. The only reason people like her is from the voice acting, which admittedly is great. However every action made by the character has no defined personality and that was done by design. It would be like saying that your MC from Fallout 4 is a great protagonist.
LOL at comparing Kassandra to Fallout 4's voice actor.
Voice acting is 90% of personality to me in a video game character. Particularly in a massive open world game where achieving consistent characterization is damn-near impossible. Perhaps you're more invested in the story of these titles than I am. I certainly don't play them because of any particular draw to the main characters, but it's a bonus when they are acted well. Which is why Ezio, Edward, Bayek, and Kassandra stand out so much for me.
Some context: Used to love AC (Ezio trilogy was my favorite), but Valhalla was the first AC I played since Black Flag. I really liked it for the first 20 hours, but I soured on it shortly after. I didn’t like the huge focus on combat and large scale battles. The side content was bland, and I just felt like the game wasn’t offering nothing new or exciting that I hadn’t already seen within the first few hours. I ended up quitting the game and just looked up the ending on youtube.
The recent 60 FPS patch for Odyssey makes me want to finally give it a chance though. The setting looks perfectly suited for an AC game, and Cassandra seems like a stronger character than Eivor. How different is it from Valhalla?
Depends on what you didn't like about it, if you want a more focused game without level gating, and lots of downtime looking at gear or marking enemies, valhalla is the better game.Will I like Valhalla if I wasn't a huge fan of Odyssey? I got bored with Odyssey and didn't understand the faction setting. I took over a city for one side then literally the next place I get to the game wants to to take away a city from the people I just helped get a city.