• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Will I like Odyssey if I wasn’t a huge fan of Valhalla?

Fare thee well

Neophyte
Man I got bored in just the hour that I watched my friend play Valhalla. He stopped playing it after about 3 days too. Kinda says it all really 😄
 

Raven117

Gold Member
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.
 

EDMIX

Member
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.

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.
 
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. 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.
 

Raven117

Gold Member
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.
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.
 

DeaDPo0L84

Member
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.
 
Last edited:

bargeparty

Member
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've played something like 90 hrs with Origins and 160 of Odyssey and even with the break in-between I couldn't get into Valhalla. I may try again, since they have probably made changes, but I didn't like some of the differences at launch and setting and all that. Odyssey has a huge beautiful world, all the right QoL, better protag with Kassandra, ships, etc.

Especially if you play Odyssey now. Look through the patch notes, they did a ton.

I wouldn't necessarily say if you didn't like one you wouldn't like the other, in fact they're different in a way that it would make sense if you ordered Origins/Odyssey vs Valhalla.

For Playstation, if you have PS+ the deluxe edition is $20 right now, but they're going to have another sale starting tomorrow so the Standard version may be pretty cheap. Unless you're strapped for cash sometimes it's easier to just buy and try when it's so cheap.
 
Last edited:

Aesius

Member
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.
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.

Another setting I would love to see is high/late middle ages, but that's unlikely now with Valhalla. I'd love a 1400s England setting with a Robin Hood-esque character.
 

Malakhov

Banned
Odyssey was great, although there is a lot of useless and boring traveling to make the game longer than it needed. Actually used a cheating engine for traveling, I was sick of it

Valhalla was a faction simulator, it was horrible
 
Last edited:
Do you like massive open world with boring quests and map filled with shit to collect? If you do, than AC is the perfect game for you. You will LOVE it!
 

Azelover

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
I hate the Nordic theme. To me, it has been played out. And to be honest, it never really appealed to me. But to each his own, I know a lot of people really like it.
 

RavageX

Member
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.
 
Last edited:

RafterXL

Member
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.
This.

Odyssey looks better and plays better, movement, combat, stealth, has better bows, doesn't have stupid raids. It also has much better items and customization, a better skill tree, mercenaries, voice acting, story, etc.

As much as I was excited for the Viking theme it just doesn't lend itself well to an AC game.
 

GooseMan69

Member
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.

That’s a good way of putting it. After about 20 hours, I realized there was nothing interesting to do or find out in the open world.
 
Last edited:

supernova8

Banned
Yeah Odyssey is awesome
Nintendo Switch GIF
 

Dr. Claus

Vincit qui se vincit
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Fredrik

Member
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.
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.
 
Both are tiresome slogs. If you didn't like the core structure of the gameplay, you probably wouldn't like Odessey. However, the setting and main character are better in Odessey. If the core gameplay and bloat weren't your initial problems, then you might enjoy it more.
 
I Like Valhalla better to be honest, but Odyssesy is still a great game.
I like the flow of combat slightly better in valhalla and the gear system is more meaningful. In odyssey i was bombarded with gear and at some point i simply didnt care about it at all. In valhalla for me the gear has meaning, i like updating it and i like to hunt for more armor. :)

The england setting is a bit more to my liking too. Much more serene and calm. I loved to build up my camp to a real small "town". Felt meaningful and gave me a sense of home and adventure.

Characterwise both protagonists are somewhat bland and basic, but they get "the job" done. ;)

But in the end, both are the same game basically. Each game takes a slightly different take on the ac gameloops, but it is still very very much an ac game.
 
Last edited:

Roufianos

Member
Odyssey is one of my favourite games from last gen, Valhalla is one of my least favourite.

I think it plays better, has a way more interesting setting, is less bloated and much better characters. Not sure if anyone can stomach two of these games though.
 

Notabueno

Banned
Super Mario Odyssey is amazing yes, go for it if you like great games and particularly platformers. Way better than that Ass Creed thing I was afraid you'd mention...
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
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?

Odyssey is much better in story, gameplay, much fluid, better naval wars, MUCH better characters, better soundtrack. Valhalla was a downgrade in many aspects except graphics. AC: Odyssey is still in my top 10 best games of all time.

Played as Alexios and male Eivor. Both are interesting characters but Alexios has some humor from time to time and the encounters are much better in general in Odyssey. Some missions in Valhalla might make you cringe to death.
 
Last edited:

Bragr

Banned
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.
 

Spaceman292

Banned
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.
 

Topher

Gold Member
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.

I disagree on Unity. It started out shitty, but after the fixed the initial problems it turned out really great. Now if we are talking about the co-op thing then yeah, that was shit.
 

Aesius

Member
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.
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.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Odyssey main good parts are
1) combat is better, with tons of gear u can really make some next level amazing builds and it has a whole community just making video's of builds that are amazing.
2) legendary gear which makes build possible like bear build, which is great



3) Enviroments are stunning, beautiful
4) Music is a lot better
5) Female chick voice and character is a lot better
6) Had some boat content, but it was awful, still good to do
7) mythical bosses and legendary fights where actually hard as hell and rewarding
8) Assassination actually requries build + skill, unlike valhalla
9) beautiful islands really makes you feel like you are on vacation specially if you live in a colder climate.

20200518154016.jpg

20190815181735.jpg

20190813233730.jpg

20200121125950.jpg

20200122162730.jpg


10) better looking gear
11) Actual gear that feels like worth upgrading, and hunting stuff in the world for legendary items that can make builds completely different was fun, my first and last boss was basically what u got at the start in valhalla. It's a shame. While later on u get some better gear its very very limited to what odyssey can do.
12)) Last DLC is godly, it exists out of 3 episodes of 10 hour content each ( if you 100% it ) all there own theme

Episode 1:

20190821014958.jpg

20190821014147.jpg

20190821013747.jpg

20190821012734.jpg


Episode 2:

20190821145944.jpg

20190821143535.jpg

20190821174501.jpg


Episode 3:

20190823152304.jpg

20190822011259.jpg

2020021185305.jpg

20200128155159.jpg


Things to watch out for

1) Don't 100% the game, move through the main story and then move to islands as fast as i can so u don't get burned out.
2) level 50 is all u gotta aim for, u can easily level with youtube guides, and then move on to DLC's.
3) First dlc isn't to special, just go through the main story as fast as possible then move to second actual good dlc, completing everything in the second dlc is something i like a lot, so i would do it.
4) If you have limited hardware and play the game on PC, watch a optimisation setting guide, because some settings absolute decimate performance still to this day, if you however play at 1080p/1440p and have a 3080 class card then just max everything
5) Want to assassinate from the start but find your assassination dmg is to low? get gear with assassination on it + use a bow to shoot somebody in the head then press assassinate right behind them. this will 1 shot people at low level already.
6) Watch vendors constantly, there are legendary items that show up at vendors only that are insanely good like "no skills can be used but 250% melee dmg" = 1 shot assassin dmg straight out of the gate
7) There are experience story lines on the web to be found to push experience fast + runs u can do for fast money. As this game has user made content available.

Annoying things this game ads
1) Lots of useless gear drops, u can dismantle them for materials
2) boat combat gets old fast and will become useless the moment u got the teleporters of the different islands
3) game is massive, u can get burned out fast if you turtle to much at the start of the game, fully completing the game is 180 hours, however the last 50 hours are braindead grinds to the point skip at all cost
4)
 

Raven117

Gold Member
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.
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?
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
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.
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.
 

Dr. Claus

Vincit qui se vincit
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.

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.
 

Dr. Claus

Vincit qui se vincit
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.

That is because it wasn't ancient Greece. It was a bastardization of what popular culture thinks ancient Greece was like, ignoring all the historical research, diverse cultures between city-states, and real historical landmarks of its time. Valhalla is also really bad with this, but Origins - somehow - managed to actually attempt to make it as close as they could to what it really was.
 

Sleepwalker

Gold Member
You will probably love it as long as your issues with valhalla are not gameplay related but everything else.


Gameplay is not that dissimilar but everything else is just much more fun in Odyssey.
 

Aesius

Member
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.
 

Dr. Claus

Vincit qui se vincit
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.

What? How does that make any sense?

A character's personality comes from their history, their writing, their lines, their actions - not just how a Voice Actor delivers them. That is where Odyssey (and Valhalla) fall woefully short. The characters are made to be as bland as possible with very little in terms of personality so the player can project onto them. That is why Bayek, Ezio, Edward, and even the ones folks hate the most tend to stand out. They have histories. They are their own characters and not just vessels to be used by the player.
 
Last edited:

Connxtion

Member
I played Odyssey (bought the all singing version on sale about a year ago) ran about on the first island, attacked a wolf that was there only for it to kill me in 1 hit as it was level 9 or some crap.

Never played it again 😂🙈 hate games that do this crap, no matter how much I dodged or hit it it’s health never went down.

Valhalla fixed this, even if they are higher levels you can kill them if you’re smart or good enough.

Odyssey looks lovely but so does Valhalla and the best one yet I think was Origins. I just liked the setting more in that game.
 

Umbasaborne

Banned
Odyssey is way better. Kassandra and alexios are just more agile/light on their feet and fun to play as then eivor the lumbering viking
 

Irobot82

Member
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.
 

GeorgPrime

Banned
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?

Its an Assasins Creed game. Not that they were great aside from Black Flag lol
 

Reizo Ryuu

Gold Member
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.
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.

If you didn't like the combat, traversal or story, you're not gonna like valhalla either.
 

GooseMan69

Member
Played it for a little bit last night. The setting and character alone makes it significantly more enjoyable than Valhalla.
 

Jigsaah

Gold Member
I loved Odyssey, could not stand Valhalla. The combat is absolute dog water in Valhalla. I don't feel like an assassin...just a brute with a bunch of other brutes beating up stupid AI. The stealth element is all but gone and that really pissed me off. Can't believe this is the fastest selling AC.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom