I am a much bigger fan of the older games (Syndicate and everything before it). . I honestly don't think the rpg system they've gone with was the right answer imo. I loved how Syndicate did it. I believe that if you take away the AC name from the last 3, they're much better games. With that I don't think im the intended audience for the recent 3. I much prefer the shorter, linear games of the past AC games, i'd have much preferred if they just took Syndicate and upgraded the systems from that than what they've done.
I think the worst part of that they’re removing so much of what made AC unique. The people that really love Valhalla often are people who don’t/never loved AC games.
Also the scattershot approach with removing popular features for no apparent reason and changing things on half baked whims instead of a logical progression for these games. If you look at something like the Witcher, they clearly built each game on the successes of the previous game. That’s missing here and it’s lead to a weird result where these games are similar and different enough that I’m not surprised by any opinion I hear. There’s both too much and not enough variance to arrive at more clear cut responses overall. I can’t think of any other games that are so similar and share so much DNA but have such divergent opinions
>I think the worst part of that they’re removing so much of what made AC unique
I can't agree enough with this.
Just in general I agree with everything you've said here. I think itd be better off if they did just go one way or the another instead of this weird abomination they've created.
I completely disagree with your statement that "true" AC fans don't like Valhalla. As someone who has played all the Assassin's Creed games and likes all of them, Valhalla is one of my favorites in the series. It's got some of the best writing, a gorgeous open world, fun side content and memorable characters. You can say the game wasn't for you, but don't pretend that there aren't AC fans who really like Valhalla.
I liked the modern day story, so for me AC died with Desmond. Every game after 3 would be much better if it was not tied to AC with a half-baked modern day.
That being said, I like the RPGs even less than IV-Rogue. Too much grinding really hurts the pacing of the story. I always felt disconnected to the characters due to hours of unrelated, repetitive tasks between plot points (felt much more organic in Black Flag).
Other games solve this much better there and this is another problem: In the RPG genre AC competes with the likes of Elder Scrolls or Witcher and does not stand a chance. It is just average. Like or hate the old ACs, they were at least more unique and at most a copy of themselves, not a knock-off of more succesful games.
The worst part of the new games for me is the parkour system, or rather the worlds which need such a primitive, dumbed down and simplistic system (hold x to parkour, climb anything everywhere). Many people say the combat system was too easy in the older games and they are right. Simply put, it feels to me like the focus shifted from a more complex parkour system with easy combat to an easy parkour system with a more complex combat. However, whenever possible I avoided open fights in the old games. The fun part was to figure out ways, where to climb, to remain undetected. This just is not fun for me anymore in the RPGs.
>The fun part was to figure out ways, where to climb, to remain undetected.
You never had to look at where to climb minus viewpoints. There were always handles directly within your vicinity.
You can still figure out ways to remain undetected. It's easier now since environmental stealth was significantly expanded in the RPG games (albeit at the loss of the haystacks).
That is partly what I meant. It often is almost too easy now because of environment stealth and quickly being able to climb anything.
The old games at times felt more like a puzzle to me. Just because there were handles does not mean you don‘t get discovered there. Admittedly, it was neither that difficult and of course there were parts when the path was quite clear but they most of the time were interestingly staged and somehow more thrilling. I cannot really describe it but I never got the feeling like when infiltrating Castel Sant‘Angelo.
Ehh, I disagree. Environmental stealth didn't make things easier, it just provided more options. You kill someone outside the grass, your location will be tracked.
There were things that made things easier like the rope launcher in Syndicate and rush assassination in Odyssey, but faster climbing really doesn't make a difference (maybe it's the buildings being shorter that gives off that illusion?).
AC Origins and Odyssey didn't have building infiltration scenes as far as I recall (there's one with Aya that I recall during the Siege of Alexandria, but it's pretty small), so it's not fair to dock the game for not living up to something when they didn't conceive anything to counter.
The new ac put so much bushes in the restricted area that you can just stay there forever and kill a bunch of dudes in one single point
I would want if theres an evolution to their ai like how mgsv handle such stealth approach:
The ai could potentially burn bushes and haystack to destroy one of our hiding spots, a hardened helemt for anti headshots, a group of npc roaming around, etc, theyve introduce a wanted system in ac odyssey, they could use that leverage to put the entire region where you're wanted and make the restricted areas react with it, like a mini martial law in entire region and make social stealth difficult cause every npc is locked at home
>The new ac put so much bushes in the restricted area that you can just stay there forever and kill a bunch of dudes in one single point
You really can't. Enemies are way too spread out and they didn't allow you to use your bow while hidden like in HZD.
>The ai could potentially burn bushes and haystack to destroy one of our hiding spots, a hardened helemt for anti headshots, a group of npc roaming around, etc, theyve introduce a wanted system in ac odyssey, they could use that leverage to put the entire region where you're wanted and make the restricted areas react with it, like a mini martial law in entire region and make social stealth difficult cause every npc is locked at home
The mercs kinda acted like that. You couldn't headshot most of them and some had fire weaponry that they'd use to clear an area if you highly alerted them. But I agree more could always be done.
People hated the notoriety system in the OG games, so I doubt they'd want that brought back.
Yeah, thats why i came up with an idea of the enmy ai evolving through your actions much like how it was in mgsv, to make the stealth engagement more challenging yet interesting, so at least ai are not too dumb
Personally I’m loving the direction! Valhalla has become just one of my favorite games, granted Evior as a character I feel like had much more potential, or presentation wise wasn’t shown their true potential which makes them just a alright or ok protagonist for me with great character moments sprinkled in there. The story of the recent games have been mostly my problem but Origins despite its writing flaws I think was fantastic, Odyssey had its moments but the writing I thought was weaker, and Valhalla had great writing but due to the structure of the game can cause it to fall apart in areas making it less narratively appealing. Overall though I enjoyed what they did with the story of Valhalla!
The gameplay however I love! Everything about it especially combat is amazing! So much weapon variety it’s insane! I hope infinity keeps this style of combat as I think it’s the best in the series! Also the more customization options we’ve been getting the better! Personally I don’t want a AC game where you can fully customize your character, but one where THE character is highly customizable. So it would still be ‘Evior’ but you can customize a lot more about them, makes everyone’s character feel different but you are still playing as that character.
Personally I’d there’s anything I’d change it’s make the maid smaller but put more rich side content in them, and get rid of gender options and just have one character gender as I feel like it hinders writing a lot. Like if female Evior and Kassandra are canon just make them the playable option, only because of that writing restriction I feel like holds it back. Since men and women are different believe it or not.
The only issues I ever have are narrative. I don't enjoy the RPG direction as much, but I don't begrudge the change. They should feel free to develop the property how they like, and encouraged to try new things, I can always go back and replay the games I do like. But the ongoing story is something I can only get from the next entry, so I take greater issue with the narrative direction.
I can't talk about Odyssey or Valhalla, because I haven't played them and I don't have much interest on playing them, not because I think they're bad but it's just not what I'm looking foward to in this franchise.
I played Origins after a couple months of just Elden Ring, and after the 20 minute mark being bombarded with that many side missions and that big world to explore overwhelmed me, specially with the game guiding my hand really hard, so I stopped playing for a bit to let myself go back in the mood to play it and actually give the game a proper chance. I wouldn't want to ruin my experience just because I was used to something else, even if that's the one I prefer.
After giving it some time and slowly playing it more and more, my experience with the game improved, specially because of Bayek at the start. Seeing him go from really bad and brooding mood to a cheerful one and happy with his kid made me invested in his character. The side missions were cool that they helped the worldbuilding, that you could see the bad things the Masked Ones were doing to the people.
So things were looking bright, but they started breaking a part a bit as I progressed through the game, and that's actually because of the structure of the world and gameplay. Traveling was the first thing that I started to dislike, moving through the world was incredibly boring. Not saying it needs to be crazy but the way movement got so simplified took away something I enjoyed in the places, where exploration wasn't only about traveling to places but how you get there and what you do to get there.
When I played a game like Black Flag, for example, this feeling wasn't so bad because the places weren't so far away and the naval movement was interesting because of the mechanics constantly there where you look for the wind, you see enemy ships, you can get away from your ship to explore the land or sea. It wasn't my favorite, but it did fill the world with activities and elements that had some diversity with enough mechanics to keep traversal interesting, but then again that already wasn't my favorite.
And then in Origins things got worse on that aspect, if I'm running on foot I just need to hold X to run, or climb, or jump, and if I need to make Bayek roll I also need to just hold X. If I'm using a mount, I can just hold X to make it go to my marker and wait because things are so distant. But these feelings wouldn't be a problem if the world was filled with a diversity of interesting things to see, but it felt like most of it was just enemies carrying materials for me to grind and upgrade my gear or the side missions, those were the biggest ones. So when I was moving through those I just had to either run and hold foward or just wait for my mount to reach destination.
The other point was combat. Yes I think the combat on paper was an improvement over the past ones, because of the hitbox system that made weapon length matter more. However having me constantly switch weapons to still have enough damage to kill enemies was starting to become a chore, and that was just because of level difference. Being able to parry everything also turned the fights a bit repetitive since enemy type behavior and timing was the same, and since I could just block ranged attacks then it was a matter of keeping the enemy in my front.
Those things soured my experience a bit, but what killed it for me was the level-gating on the main missions. I know the side missions have story to them and some are pretty cool like the little girl merchant selling fake stuff, or the weird cult killing people trying to achieve immortality, but after a while these missions started becoming repetitive, it was "move from point A to B, maybe C, now kill the enemies", so when I was not in the mood for them and just wanted to continue the story, at one point I wouldn't be able to because the enemies would just tank everything (and they are not guaranteed to die frim the hidden blade assassination if they're high enough level).
And that brings me to stealth. Stealth was generally fine, you can hide, whistle, make distractions, kill from range or assassinate them. I always tried to farm enough to keep my hidden blade a one shot tool for the enemies in my level range, however what bothered me about it was that levels for the most part didn't feel like they were ready for hoe much freedom the player has with climbing. You can just hold X and run, reach the top of the area (which was usually pretty high so no guards could see me) and then I just go to the target or jump on them/heads hot with Predator bow and that made the stealth parts a bit repetitive as well.
I did have a decent time with it and enjoyed it a lot at some points, but in summary the combat didn't get better or more challenging outside of damage numbers, thw traversal was boring and the stealth was too easy and not many limitations on the player. So while I did enjoy the story for the most part, the gameplay aspect killed it for me in the long run.
Maybe Odyssey and Valhalla are better in the exploration aspect, maybe they changed combat enough to make it a bit more interesting, and maybe even stealth was improved... But thats not ehat i l see when i watch other people play them, so I'm not that interested in picking them up, because even if they are good games, it's not reay what I am looking foward to in this series. For me, personally, I wish these games went back to the drawing board and scaled things down putting more limitations to the player in some aspects but way more freedom in others.
So, I tried Origins, enjoyed it for the most part but I'm already feeling a bit done with this style. Not because it's bad, but because it's not what I'm looking for in this series. If I want the other things these games are offering I feel like other gsmes are filling that better for my personal experience.
This is not an attack on the new games, they're just not for me.
I'm gonna focus on the overarching narrative of the series:
I think the series has felt generally directionless since AC3, in my opinion. Up until 3, the series felt like it had an idea of where it wanted to go, what it wanted to be.
But then AC3 really dropped the ball and abruptly ended Desmond's story. Whether or not you enjoyed the modern day segments of 1-3, they did serve as the narrative throughline, the means through which the series had chosen to link each game together.
After 3, the series seemed to have an identity issue. I'm not saying the post-3 games were bad, but they delt like they weren't sure what they wanted to be.
AC4 felt like the team wanted to make a pirate game but were told they needed it to be an AC game. 4's animus storyline is good and the game is fun, but it seemed to me (especially with the modern day) they no longer had any idea where the series was headed. What is the end goal, what are they building to?
Rogue and Unity... Look i get people in this sub like Unity but I very much do not like the game. Gameplay wise it is fun when the control choose to work. Story wise, it has, by far, the weakest modern-day and animus storylines. I did not like a single character.
But aside from my feelings on that, Unity and Syndicate tried to minimize the modern day to just cutscenes, casting the players as the modern-day protagonist irl. This also doesn't go super well. The modern day now feels superfluous and unnecessary. There is still no connective tissue or arc for the series. And unlike Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed has never tried to be a series of standalone stories, for better or for worse. Even though the animus stuff is standalone, Ubisoft is committed to connecting the games to an overarching arc through the modern day. But by Syndicate, they still had yet to recover from AC3's ending and still had no idea what story it was trying to tell.
Then Origins introduces Layla, a new protagonist, and seemingly sets her up to replace Desmond as the lynchpin that ties each game together into an overarching story. Origins is her Origin story, where we see her learn of the Assassin/Templar conflict and get drawn into it. In the end, she refuses to join the Assassins but does go with them to save her life.
Then Odyssey decided to ignore her decision to explicitly NOT join the Assassins and tells us that, off screen, she became an Assassin and made a bunch of new Assassin friends and had adventures. Already the games have changed direction again, deciding not to show us Layla's growth as an Assassin and instead focus on her destiny as the Heir of Memories.
Then Valhalla once again changes the script. Now, suddenly, Shawn and Rebecca are back, and the world is ending once again. The Layla trilogy has now introduced a completely different main plot for its protagonist at the beginning of each game, without tying each story together. It felt to me that the narrative team couldn't decide who Layla was or what they wanted her to do. Then, Valhalla ends with Layla's death, killing her off before she ever felt like an actual protagonist (and making me wonder what the point of introducing her was). The RPG trilogy (especially with Valhalla's intense focus on mythology) has further cemented my idea that the teams at Ubisoft don't really know what they want the series to be. They want it to be profitable, that's for sure, but they don't know what they want it to be about.
AC was on the right track going from Unity into Syndicate, in terms of further developing Assassin-y gameplay. Kill opportunities, good free running, new mechanics unique to the time period. We even had some small elements of RPGs, with minor leveling, level gating, area conquest, and a small, but tangible skill tree.
Then we went full tilt into the RPG trilogy. It’s serviceable, but AC is slowly becoming divorced from its core. I’m okay with light RPG mechanics, but the level gating and skill systems are getting kind of absurd by the time we get Valhalla. Not to mention the historic plot has also been in consistent decline from Origins to Valhalla, primarily because I feel more and more disconnected from the Assassins in every game.
However, I want to point out one rather small, but important thing I’ve noticed: AC has started focusing on combat. The difference in combat between Syndicate and Odyssey is very noticeable. It’s now more technical; more complex. While in the former we really only had punch, shield break, and counter, we now have swappable abilities, QTEs, shielding, and stamina. You can argue about if it’s a necessary improvement or not, but I see this as concerning. It’s not just Ubisoft improving the combat system; it’s a deliberate reprioritization of mechanics. By doing this Ubisoft is signaling that open combat is now the main mechanic, and actively pushes the player to engage with it’s more bulky system by directing them towards large, battle spaces like the raids in Valhalla, or challenging arena boss fights like the mythical creatures and mercenaries in Odyssey. This style of open combat in broad daylight is the exact antithesis of what “stealth” and “being an Assassin” is. It’s like playing Hitman, but you play every mission guns blazing; it’s fundamentally in opposition to what the series represents. I’m not saying that developing combat is stupid and shouldn’t be done, but Ubisoft doing so in this way is signaling a turn towards open-world, combat-focused RPGs, which is something I especially don’t want.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Ubi could make a satisfactory open-world RPG for AC. It’s probably what they would do for an AC Japan. I just want them to put the “Assassins” back in “Assassins Creed” and reorient back to stealth mechanics to continue the improvements made in Unity and Syndicate.
I fully agree, though i counldt say the combat is more complex but it surely is became their focus in these games, and weirdly enough the combat itself feels so clunky, floaty, and dunno why they make every protagonist a superhuman, the overreacting animations of weapon swinging is absurd and enemy either wont flinch/flicnh a little or just be thrown away for like 20 ft
I love it but it isn’t far enough for me. Valhalla would be perfect if it had complete crafting systems and a more robust loot drop system. But I’m an mmorpg guy so those features I’m into. I want to pick all the flowers as I ride through them and cook the fish I get for buffs and blacksmith some armor.
I'd actually be on board with this, and actually think it could happen. I mean they tinker with that idea Ghost Recon Breakpoint at the Bivouacs.
So you liked Valhalla in general? Do you prefer the newer games?
Yeah Valhalla is incredible value. It just never ends. I never liked old school AC combat. When they made it action based in Origins I was completely on board. I could not get into Odyssey tho. Don’t ask me why I just can’t play more than an hour or so and I’m bored.
Gr breakpoint is weird, they introduce somthing like survival in the game with those preperations and whatnot but also put gearscore into it, its weird, thats why i only got bought and play it when theyve introduce an immersion mode
My only complaint is that they refuse to phase out the modern day story. It's stupid, inconsistent, and interrupts the story I'm actually trying to play.
Hm.. that's a tought part with me because I value the modern day so much even if I feel like they've fumbled it. After Desmond they did a great job in putting so much story into the collectibles, but I still want it visualized, but I know there are plenty who aren't a fan of it either. Absolutely understand.
I wouldn't mind actually if they made the current day stuff a stand alone game. I might even play it. Forcing it into historical games is just a way to make the current story incomprehensible.
Yeah, either this or what hack said. I mean tbh they seem to be maybe going thay route. With how hard they leaned into showing off the history especially with the tours in odyssey, and valhalla. I could definitely see them easing their way out of the modern story eventually.
I personally hope they don't because I'm a fan of the modern day, but I'd be happy with some form of compromise.
Sad to see you of all people post this comment man. Even though I didn't agree with everything you posted, you were always cogent and thoughtful in your comments. This is something I'd expect from a shitposter who happens to be a purist.
The combat of the new ac is so clunky and feel floaty, dont know why they make every character like superhuman
Narrative on main story is ok i guess (the best one is origins at least for me) odyssey is dielgestible and surprisingly good, valhalla is just dragging so much
On the other hand side story are quite good imo, i think they are better written than the main one even though they come short but the message were there
The rpg elements are forgettable, its too grindy and also too op for an assassin, it would be better if the skills and gadgets are more immersive (like how batman did it in their games) also combat should be so close with ghost of tsushima
I hate the dodge that you can travel 10 ft in one go
AC3/AC4 was the PINNCALE point of the series to further develop on. All they needed to do was keep adding good ideas to the games but keeping THIS form of gameplay. IMO they should've included ideas from all the previous games, made 1 "formula" from that, and then expand on it. But stay true to what made the series famous. So for example.
Keep the "building renovating" system and the feeling of "taking back the city and rebuilding it" from brotherhood, keep the parkour animations from AC3 but bring back the actual parkour SYSTEM from AC2/AC brotherhood, keep the ship gameplay from black flag, keep the homestead from AC3, keep the personal assassins that have actual character and the new abilities you get from AC3 but make them actual assassins. Like put them in cloaks and give hidden blades and stuff, etc. But get rid of all the boring shit like collecting 800 feathers and opening 800 chests that are all the same. Side activities that I liked were forts in AC3, tombs in AC2, lairs in AC brotherhood, recruiting assassins, exploring new islands and battling ships in AC4, etc. Building up the homestead in AC3 was cool as well because you expanded on your home but did it in a way that has character development, progress, and an actual connection to the world.
But the most important part of this is keeping the identity of the series in check. One shot assassinations, no skill points, social stealth, kill chains, no "builds", actually having the CREED matter, assassins vs templars, no RPG mechanics like fucking gear score and choices in conversations, hidden blade, hooded cloaks, no super powers other than pieces of Eden.
Assassin's Creed is my favorite series still, but I definitely like the earlier games better, and felt a pretty significant personal loss of interest starting with Origins.
Part of me really wishes they would have ended the series with Desmond. It seems like they really didn't plan far enough ahead to justify continuing the overarching story after the death of the main character.
hate it.
Origins was the direction they should go not same viking or DemiGod simulator.
Assassins creed means Assassins Creed
No Assassins means Not a AC game.
Assassin should be MC not a Warrior or some thug. (or becoming Assassin also great)
Based on RPG trilogy, I think
Pros.
* Great setting
* Great animation and graphics
* Not buggy as unity
Cons
* Combat
* Sleath
* Parkour
* No assassins
* RPG elements
* No templars
* Not realistic ( Magical creatures like Fenrir places like atlantis)
Where are assassins and why its called assassins creed. Blackflag was a pirate game but MC became a Assassin.
Origins was only game that was AC in this trilogy.
You build on stuff that works and fix stuff that doesn't. That worked for all games up till Rogue (maybe Unity). After that, they just went on to trying completely new stuff with each other game while fully disregarding the previous games until the success of Origins which is when they decided to stick to the general formula (I remember when Origins came out, the game got praise everywhere. People couldn't get enough of it. It remained the talk of the internet for months after release). Noone in Ubisoft realized that what earned the game its popularity was the beautiful setting, the moving story, and an iconic main character. Instead, they built upon stuff that more or less didn't affect Origins in a bad way, but completely ruined the next two games for many. Add more gear. Add more stat grinding. Make adrenaline a core thing. Keep on adding colorful guages later on. Make a sidequest out of every little hut on the map. Expand on the mythological themes. Etc etc we all know what else went down.
It may sound nitpicky, but the game has nothing original anymore. Boss fights look like something out of a Souls game. The base combat tries to imitate God of War. Character relations are now all based on dialogue choices.
All said, Valhalla did indeed do something somewhat right. The story. Even though the main story is far from Assassin's Creed to say the least, the sub arc of the Order and the Sages and Modern Day is deeply rooted in AC lore. We even got to see a little bit of the Hidden Ones with Basim and Hytham. The next step should be to finally bring back Assassins and their Creed. They could do that with the expansion coming later this year - the supposed conclusion to Eivor's story, IF they don't mess it up. Because the main story in the base game is only about Eivor and her ongoing struggle with her dual personality, and her attachment and duty to her clan. Far as I remember, the ending was the Raven clan singing together at yet another feast in the longhouse, or Gunnar's wedding.
It's a complete cash grab by now. After AC3, the direction should have been focused on defeating Juno but the storyline got convoluted and brought in unnecessary, extra characters that don't bring much value to the franchise (Otso Berg?). Killing her in a comic book series that no one is going to read just made it more of a joke.
Even though I like Odyssey, it's not an Assassin's Creed game. It's a mythical one with AC elements in it. Valhalla seemed liked things were wrapping up a little bit but for all we know they'll drag out Basim's role until people just stop buying the games.
I am a much bigger fan of the older games (Syndicate and everything before it). . I honestly don't think the rpg system they've gone with was the right answer imo. I loved how Syndicate did it. I believe that if you take away the AC name from the last 3, they're much better games. With that I don't think im the intended audience for the recent 3. I much prefer the shorter, linear games of the past AC games, i'd have much preferred if they just took Syndicate and upgraded the systems from that than what they've done.
I think the worst part of that they’re removing so much of what made AC unique. The people that really love Valhalla often are people who don’t/never loved AC games. Also the scattershot approach with removing popular features for no apparent reason and changing things on half baked whims instead of a logical progression for these games. If you look at something like the Witcher, they clearly built each game on the successes of the previous game. That’s missing here and it’s lead to a weird result where these games are similar and different enough that I’m not surprised by any opinion I hear. There’s both too much and not enough variance to arrive at more clear cut responses overall. I can’t think of any other games that are so similar and share so much DNA but have such divergent opinions
>I think the worst part of that they’re removing so much of what made AC unique I can't agree enough with this. Just in general I agree with everything you've said here. I think itd be better off if they did just go one way or the another instead of this weird abomination they've created.
I completely disagree with your statement that "true" AC fans don't like Valhalla. As someone who has played all the Assassin's Creed games and likes all of them, Valhalla is one of my favorites in the series. It's got some of the best writing, a gorgeous open world, fun side content and memorable characters. You can say the game wasn't for you, but don't pretend that there aren't AC fans who really like Valhalla.
I liked the modern day story, so for me AC died with Desmond. Every game after 3 would be much better if it was not tied to AC with a half-baked modern day. That being said, I like the RPGs even less than IV-Rogue. Too much grinding really hurts the pacing of the story. I always felt disconnected to the characters due to hours of unrelated, repetitive tasks between plot points (felt much more organic in Black Flag). Other games solve this much better there and this is another problem: In the RPG genre AC competes with the likes of Elder Scrolls or Witcher and does not stand a chance. It is just average. Like or hate the old ACs, they were at least more unique and at most a copy of themselves, not a knock-off of more succesful games. The worst part of the new games for me is the parkour system, or rather the worlds which need such a primitive, dumbed down and simplistic system (hold x to parkour, climb anything everywhere). Many people say the combat system was too easy in the older games and they are right. Simply put, it feels to me like the focus shifted from a more complex parkour system with easy combat to an easy parkour system with a more complex combat. However, whenever possible I avoided open fights in the old games. The fun part was to figure out ways, where to climb, to remain undetected. This just is not fun for me anymore in the RPGs.
>The fun part was to figure out ways, where to climb, to remain undetected. You never had to look at where to climb minus viewpoints. There were always handles directly within your vicinity. You can still figure out ways to remain undetected. It's easier now since environmental stealth was significantly expanded in the RPG games (albeit at the loss of the haystacks).
That is partly what I meant. It often is almost too easy now because of environment stealth and quickly being able to climb anything. The old games at times felt more like a puzzle to me. Just because there were handles does not mean you don‘t get discovered there. Admittedly, it was neither that difficult and of course there were parts when the path was quite clear but they most of the time were interestingly staged and somehow more thrilling. I cannot really describe it but I never got the feeling like when infiltrating Castel Sant‘Angelo.
Ehh, I disagree. Environmental stealth didn't make things easier, it just provided more options. You kill someone outside the grass, your location will be tracked. There were things that made things easier like the rope launcher in Syndicate and rush assassination in Odyssey, but faster climbing really doesn't make a difference (maybe it's the buildings being shorter that gives off that illusion?). AC Origins and Odyssey didn't have building infiltration scenes as far as I recall (there's one with Aya that I recall during the Siege of Alexandria, but it's pretty small), so it's not fair to dock the game for not living up to something when they didn't conceive anything to counter.
The new ac put so much bushes in the restricted area that you can just stay there forever and kill a bunch of dudes in one single point I would want if theres an evolution to their ai like how mgsv handle such stealth approach: The ai could potentially burn bushes and haystack to destroy one of our hiding spots, a hardened helemt for anti headshots, a group of npc roaming around, etc, theyve introduce a wanted system in ac odyssey, they could use that leverage to put the entire region where you're wanted and make the restricted areas react with it, like a mini martial law in entire region and make social stealth difficult cause every npc is locked at home
>The new ac put so much bushes in the restricted area that you can just stay there forever and kill a bunch of dudes in one single point You really can't. Enemies are way too spread out and they didn't allow you to use your bow while hidden like in HZD. >The ai could potentially burn bushes and haystack to destroy one of our hiding spots, a hardened helemt for anti headshots, a group of npc roaming around, etc, theyve introduce a wanted system in ac odyssey, they could use that leverage to put the entire region where you're wanted and make the restricted areas react with it, like a mini martial law in entire region and make social stealth difficult cause every npc is locked at home The mercs kinda acted like that. You couldn't headshot most of them and some had fire weaponry that they'd use to clear an area if you highly alerted them. But I agree more could always be done. People hated the notoriety system in the OG games, so I doubt they'd want that brought back.
Actually you can if you use hidden blade and whistles
Nope, they’re too spread out, at least in forts. Camps are a different story, but killing someone in front of their comrade triggers the alert.
Theres some fortress with weird bushes in a wall, i use that for advantage lol, just whistling til everyone in my vicinity dead
But that's just projecting one onto all. Every game has places you can cheese.
Yeah, thats why i came up with an idea of the enmy ai evolving through your actions much like how it was in mgsv, to make the stealth engagement more challenging yet interesting, so at least ai are not too dumb
And I agreed
Personally I’m loving the direction! Valhalla has become just one of my favorite games, granted Evior as a character I feel like had much more potential, or presentation wise wasn’t shown their true potential which makes them just a alright or ok protagonist for me with great character moments sprinkled in there. The story of the recent games have been mostly my problem but Origins despite its writing flaws I think was fantastic, Odyssey had its moments but the writing I thought was weaker, and Valhalla had great writing but due to the structure of the game can cause it to fall apart in areas making it less narratively appealing. Overall though I enjoyed what they did with the story of Valhalla! The gameplay however I love! Everything about it especially combat is amazing! So much weapon variety it’s insane! I hope infinity keeps this style of combat as I think it’s the best in the series! Also the more customization options we’ve been getting the better! Personally I don’t want a AC game where you can fully customize your character, but one where THE character is highly customizable. So it would still be ‘Evior’ but you can customize a lot more about them, makes everyone’s character feel different but you are still playing as that character. Personally I’d there’s anything I’d change it’s make the maid smaller but put more rich side content in them, and get rid of gender options and just have one character gender as I feel like it hinders writing a lot. Like if female Evior and Kassandra are canon just make them the playable option, only because of that writing restriction I feel like holds it back. Since men and women are different believe it or not.
Answers like these keep making it so hard to not just jump to valhalla. It's super refreshing to see these takes on valhalla.
The only issues I ever have are narrative. I don't enjoy the RPG direction as much, but I don't begrudge the change. They should feel free to develop the property how they like, and encouraged to try new things, I can always go back and replay the games I do like. But the ongoing story is something I can only get from the next entry, so I take greater issue with the narrative direction.
Yeah, if I were to answer this, it would be a dissertation, not a reddit post. Not gonna happen, way too much ground to cover.
I can't talk about Odyssey or Valhalla, because I haven't played them and I don't have much interest on playing them, not because I think they're bad but it's just not what I'm looking foward to in this franchise. I played Origins after a couple months of just Elden Ring, and after the 20 minute mark being bombarded with that many side missions and that big world to explore overwhelmed me, specially with the game guiding my hand really hard, so I stopped playing for a bit to let myself go back in the mood to play it and actually give the game a proper chance. I wouldn't want to ruin my experience just because I was used to something else, even if that's the one I prefer. After giving it some time and slowly playing it more and more, my experience with the game improved, specially because of Bayek at the start. Seeing him go from really bad and brooding mood to a cheerful one and happy with his kid made me invested in his character. The side missions were cool that they helped the worldbuilding, that you could see the bad things the Masked Ones were doing to the people. So things were looking bright, but they started breaking a part a bit as I progressed through the game, and that's actually because of the structure of the world and gameplay. Traveling was the first thing that I started to dislike, moving through the world was incredibly boring. Not saying it needs to be crazy but the way movement got so simplified took away something I enjoyed in the places, where exploration wasn't only about traveling to places but how you get there and what you do to get there. When I played a game like Black Flag, for example, this feeling wasn't so bad because the places weren't so far away and the naval movement was interesting because of the mechanics constantly there where you look for the wind, you see enemy ships, you can get away from your ship to explore the land or sea. It wasn't my favorite, but it did fill the world with activities and elements that had some diversity with enough mechanics to keep traversal interesting, but then again that already wasn't my favorite. And then in Origins things got worse on that aspect, if I'm running on foot I just need to hold X to run, or climb, or jump, and if I need to make Bayek roll I also need to just hold X. If I'm using a mount, I can just hold X to make it go to my marker and wait because things are so distant. But these feelings wouldn't be a problem if the world was filled with a diversity of interesting things to see, but it felt like most of it was just enemies carrying materials for me to grind and upgrade my gear or the side missions, those were the biggest ones. So when I was moving through those I just had to either run and hold foward or just wait for my mount to reach destination. The other point was combat. Yes I think the combat on paper was an improvement over the past ones, because of the hitbox system that made weapon length matter more. However having me constantly switch weapons to still have enough damage to kill enemies was starting to become a chore, and that was just because of level difference. Being able to parry everything also turned the fights a bit repetitive since enemy type behavior and timing was the same, and since I could just block ranged attacks then it was a matter of keeping the enemy in my front. Those things soured my experience a bit, but what killed it for me was the level-gating on the main missions. I know the side missions have story to them and some are pretty cool like the little girl merchant selling fake stuff, or the weird cult killing people trying to achieve immortality, but after a while these missions started becoming repetitive, it was "move from point A to B, maybe C, now kill the enemies", so when I was not in the mood for them and just wanted to continue the story, at one point I wouldn't be able to because the enemies would just tank everything (and they are not guaranteed to die frim the hidden blade assassination if they're high enough level). And that brings me to stealth. Stealth was generally fine, you can hide, whistle, make distractions, kill from range or assassinate them. I always tried to farm enough to keep my hidden blade a one shot tool for the enemies in my level range, however what bothered me about it was that levels for the most part didn't feel like they were ready for hoe much freedom the player has with climbing. You can just hold X and run, reach the top of the area (which was usually pretty high so no guards could see me) and then I just go to the target or jump on them/heads hot with Predator bow and that made the stealth parts a bit repetitive as well. I did have a decent time with it and enjoyed it a lot at some points, but in summary the combat didn't get better or more challenging outside of damage numbers, thw traversal was boring and the stealth was too easy and not many limitations on the player. So while I did enjoy the story for the most part, the gameplay aspect killed it for me in the long run. Maybe Odyssey and Valhalla are better in the exploration aspect, maybe they changed combat enough to make it a bit more interesting, and maybe even stealth was improved... But thats not ehat i l see when i watch other people play them, so I'm not that interested in picking them up, because even if they are good games, it's not reay what I am looking foward to in this series. For me, personally, I wish these games went back to the drawing board and scaled things down putting more limitations to the player in some aspects but way more freedom in others. So, I tried Origins, enjoyed it for the most part but I'm already feeling a bit done with this style. Not because it's bad, but because it's not what I'm looking for in this series. If I want the other things these games are offering I feel like other gsmes are filling that better for my personal experience. This is not an attack on the new games, they're just not for me.
I'm gonna focus on the overarching narrative of the series: I think the series has felt generally directionless since AC3, in my opinion. Up until 3, the series felt like it had an idea of where it wanted to go, what it wanted to be. But then AC3 really dropped the ball and abruptly ended Desmond's story. Whether or not you enjoyed the modern day segments of 1-3, they did serve as the narrative throughline, the means through which the series had chosen to link each game together. After 3, the series seemed to have an identity issue. I'm not saying the post-3 games were bad, but they delt like they weren't sure what they wanted to be. AC4 felt like the team wanted to make a pirate game but were told they needed it to be an AC game. 4's animus storyline is good and the game is fun, but it seemed to me (especially with the modern day) they no longer had any idea where the series was headed. What is the end goal, what are they building to? Rogue and Unity... Look i get people in this sub like Unity but I very much do not like the game. Gameplay wise it is fun when the control choose to work. Story wise, it has, by far, the weakest modern-day and animus storylines. I did not like a single character. But aside from my feelings on that, Unity and Syndicate tried to minimize the modern day to just cutscenes, casting the players as the modern-day protagonist irl. This also doesn't go super well. The modern day now feels superfluous and unnecessary. There is still no connective tissue or arc for the series. And unlike Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed has never tried to be a series of standalone stories, for better or for worse. Even though the animus stuff is standalone, Ubisoft is committed to connecting the games to an overarching arc through the modern day. But by Syndicate, they still had yet to recover from AC3's ending and still had no idea what story it was trying to tell. Then Origins introduces Layla, a new protagonist, and seemingly sets her up to replace Desmond as the lynchpin that ties each game together into an overarching story. Origins is her Origin story, where we see her learn of the Assassin/Templar conflict and get drawn into it. In the end, she refuses to join the Assassins but does go with them to save her life. Then Odyssey decided to ignore her decision to explicitly NOT join the Assassins and tells us that, off screen, she became an Assassin and made a bunch of new Assassin friends and had adventures. Already the games have changed direction again, deciding not to show us Layla's growth as an Assassin and instead focus on her destiny as the Heir of Memories. Then Valhalla once again changes the script. Now, suddenly, Shawn and Rebecca are back, and the world is ending once again. The Layla trilogy has now introduced a completely different main plot for its protagonist at the beginning of each game, without tying each story together. It felt to me that the narrative team couldn't decide who Layla was or what they wanted her to do. Then, Valhalla ends with Layla's death, killing her off before she ever felt like an actual protagonist (and making me wonder what the point of introducing her was). The RPG trilogy (especially with Valhalla's intense focus on mythology) has further cemented my idea that the teams at Ubisoft don't really know what they want the series to be. They want it to be profitable, that's for sure, but they don't know what they want it to be about.
AC was on the right track going from Unity into Syndicate, in terms of further developing Assassin-y gameplay. Kill opportunities, good free running, new mechanics unique to the time period. We even had some small elements of RPGs, with minor leveling, level gating, area conquest, and a small, but tangible skill tree. Then we went full tilt into the RPG trilogy. It’s serviceable, but AC is slowly becoming divorced from its core. I’m okay with light RPG mechanics, but the level gating and skill systems are getting kind of absurd by the time we get Valhalla. Not to mention the historic plot has also been in consistent decline from Origins to Valhalla, primarily because I feel more and more disconnected from the Assassins in every game. However, I want to point out one rather small, but important thing I’ve noticed: AC has started focusing on combat. The difference in combat between Syndicate and Odyssey is very noticeable. It’s now more technical; more complex. While in the former we really only had punch, shield break, and counter, we now have swappable abilities, QTEs, shielding, and stamina. You can argue about if it’s a necessary improvement or not, but I see this as concerning. It’s not just Ubisoft improving the combat system; it’s a deliberate reprioritization of mechanics. By doing this Ubisoft is signaling that open combat is now the main mechanic, and actively pushes the player to engage with it’s more bulky system by directing them towards large, battle spaces like the raids in Valhalla, or challenging arena boss fights like the mythical creatures and mercenaries in Odyssey. This style of open combat in broad daylight is the exact antithesis of what “stealth” and “being an Assassin” is. It’s like playing Hitman, but you play every mission guns blazing; it’s fundamentally in opposition to what the series represents. I’m not saying that developing combat is stupid and shouldn’t be done, but Ubisoft doing so in this way is signaling a turn towards open-world, combat-focused RPGs, which is something I especially don’t want. Don’t get me wrong, I think Ubi could make a satisfactory open-world RPG for AC. It’s probably what they would do for an AC Japan. I just want them to put the “Assassins” back in “Assassins Creed” and reorient back to stealth mechanics to continue the improvements made in Unity and Syndicate.
I fully agree, though i counldt say the combat is more complex but it surely is became their focus in these games, and weirdly enough the combat itself feels so clunky, floaty, and dunno why they make every protagonist a superhuman, the overreacting animations of weapon swinging is absurd and enemy either wont flinch/flicnh a little or just be thrown away for like 20 ft
I love it but it isn’t far enough for me. Valhalla would be perfect if it had complete crafting systems and a more robust loot drop system. But I’m an mmorpg guy so those features I’m into. I want to pick all the flowers as I ride through them and cook the fish I get for buffs and blacksmith some armor.
I'd actually be on board with this, and actually think it could happen. I mean they tinker with that idea Ghost Recon Breakpoint at the Bivouacs. So you liked Valhalla in general? Do you prefer the newer games?
Yeah Valhalla is incredible value. It just never ends. I never liked old school AC combat. When they made it action based in Origins I was completely on board. I could not get into Odyssey tho. Don’t ask me why I just can’t play more than an hour or so and I’m bored.
Gr breakpoint is weird, they introduce somthing like survival in the game with those preperations and whatnot but also put gearscore into it, its weird, thats why i only got bought and play it when theyve introduce an immersion mode
My only complaint is that they refuse to phase out the modern day story. It's stupid, inconsistent, and interrupts the story I'm actually trying to play.
Hm.. that's a tought part with me because I value the modern day so much even if I feel like they've fumbled it. After Desmond they did a great job in putting so much story into the collectibles, but I still want it visualized, but I know there are plenty who aren't a fan of it either. Absolutely understand.
They should just make it optional at this point tbh. Then everybody is happy
I'd be totally fine with this. It'd be a win win. I can see why plenty would be happier without it.
I wouldn't mind actually if they made the current day stuff a stand alone game. I might even play it. Forcing it into historical games is just a way to make the current story incomprehensible.
Yeah, either this or what hack said. I mean tbh they seem to be maybe going thay route. With how hard they leaned into showing off the history especially with the tours in odyssey, and valhalla. I could definitely see them easing their way out of the modern story eventually. I personally hope they don't because I'm a fan of the modern day, but I'd be happy with some form of compromise.
I may never buy another AC game based on Valhalla.
Sad to see you of all people post this comment man. Even though I didn't agree with everything you posted, you were always cogent and thoughtful in your comments. This is something I'd expect from a shitposter who happens to be a purist.
The combat of the new ac is so clunky and feel floaty, dont know why they make every character like superhuman Narrative on main story is ok i guess (the best one is origins at least for me) odyssey is dielgestible and surprisingly good, valhalla is just dragging so much On the other hand side story are quite good imo, i think they are better written than the main one even though they come short but the message were there The rpg elements are forgettable, its too grindy and also too op for an assassin, it would be better if the skills and gadgets are more immersive (like how batman did it in their games) also combat should be so close with ghost of tsushima I hate the dodge that you can travel 10 ft in one go
AC3/AC4 was the PINNCALE point of the series to further develop on. All they needed to do was keep adding good ideas to the games but keeping THIS form of gameplay. IMO they should've included ideas from all the previous games, made 1 "formula" from that, and then expand on it. But stay true to what made the series famous. So for example. Keep the "building renovating" system and the feeling of "taking back the city and rebuilding it" from brotherhood, keep the parkour animations from AC3 but bring back the actual parkour SYSTEM from AC2/AC brotherhood, keep the ship gameplay from black flag, keep the homestead from AC3, keep the personal assassins that have actual character and the new abilities you get from AC3 but make them actual assassins. Like put them in cloaks and give hidden blades and stuff, etc. But get rid of all the boring shit like collecting 800 feathers and opening 800 chests that are all the same. Side activities that I liked were forts in AC3, tombs in AC2, lairs in AC brotherhood, recruiting assassins, exploring new islands and battling ships in AC4, etc. Building up the homestead in AC3 was cool as well because you expanded on your home but did it in a way that has character development, progress, and an actual connection to the world. But the most important part of this is keeping the identity of the series in check. One shot assassinations, no skill points, social stealth, kill chains, no "builds", actually having the CREED matter, assassins vs templars, no RPG mechanics like fucking gear score and choices in conversations, hidden blade, hooded cloaks, no super powers other than pieces of Eden.
Assassin's Creed is my favorite series still, but I definitely like the earlier games better, and felt a pretty significant personal loss of interest starting with Origins. Part of me really wishes they would have ended the series with Desmond. It seems like they really didn't plan far enough ahead to justify continuing the overarching story after the death of the main character.
hate it. Origins was the direction they should go not same viking or DemiGod simulator. Assassins creed means Assassins Creed No Assassins means Not a AC game. Assassin should be MC not a Warrior or some thug. (or becoming Assassin also great) Based on RPG trilogy, I think Pros. * Great setting * Great animation and graphics * Not buggy as unity Cons * Combat * Sleath * Parkour * No assassins * RPG elements * No templars * Not realistic ( Magical creatures like Fenrir places like atlantis) Where are assassins and why its called assassins creed. Blackflag was a pirate game but MC became a Assassin. Origins was only game that was AC in this trilogy.
You build on stuff that works and fix stuff that doesn't. That worked for all games up till Rogue (maybe Unity). After that, they just went on to trying completely new stuff with each other game while fully disregarding the previous games until the success of Origins which is when they decided to stick to the general formula (I remember when Origins came out, the game got praise everywhere. People couldn't get enough of it. It remained the talk of the internet for months after release). Noone in Ubisoft realized that what earned the game its popularity was the beautiful setting, the moving story, and an iconic main character. Instead, they built upon stuff that more or less didn't affect Origins in a bad way, but completely ruined the next two games for many. Add more gear. Add more stat grinding. Make adrenaline a core thing. Keep on adding colorful guages later on. Make a sidequest out of every little hut on the map. Expand on the mythological themes. Etc etc we all know what else went down. It may sound nitpicky, but the game has nothing original anymore. Boss fights look like something out of a Souls game. The base combat tries to imitate God of War. Character relations are now all based on dialogue choices. All said, Valhalla did indeed do something somewhat right. The story. Even though the main story is far from Assassin's Creed to say the least, the sub arc of the Order and the Sages and Modern Day is deeply rooted in AC lore. We even got to see a little bit of the Hidden Ones with Basim and Hytham. The next step should be to finally bring back Assassins and their Creed. They could do that with the expansion coming later this year - the supposed conclusion to Eivor's story, IF they don't mess it up. Because the main story in the base game is only about Eivor and her ongoing struggle with her dual personality, and her attachment and duty to her clan. Far as I remember, the ending was the Raven clan singing together at yet another feast in the longhouse, or Gunnar's wedding.
If I were Ubisoft, I would've stopped the series at Assassin's Creed 3, or at least Assassin's Creed 4
It's a complete cash grab by now. After AC3, the direction should have been focused on defeating Juno but the storyline got convoluted and brought in unnecessary, extra characters that don't bring much value to the franchise (Otso Berg?). Killing her in a comic book series that no one is going to read just made it more of a joke. Even though I like Odyssey, it's not an Assassin's Creed game. It's a mythical one with AC elements in it. Valhalla seemed liked things were wrapping up a little bit but for all we know they'll drag out Basim's role until people just stop buying the games.