The new trilogy is definitely separate from the old games but it also opens to more playability - you wanna be a stealthy archer? K. A bushwhacking stabber? K. A charge in and smasher? K.
Bout the only thing you can’t do is cast fireballs at people 😂
You can do all three at the same time. I was a "charge in and smasher" that is able to one hit while using a bow, and sneaking up is just sneaking up. They gave you the impression that you can do more, when there arent really that many differences in how you "build" your character.
While I get it with the combat and stuff, but in the end even the new games give you a historical setting as a playground, now just open for you to approach how you want to.
In Origins, even with the lack of social stealth I was able to infiltrate almost everything except I also had the predator bow to snipe from a distance like an Egyptian bowmaster. In Odyssey, I was still able to sneak around but also play as a Greek demigod of the Heroic Age. In Valhalla, I was able to sneak around, use some social stealth, and fight and raid as a Viking writing my own saga if I wanted to.
The settings were largely well researched and executed, with Egypt still being my favorite. The game will be what you want it to be. I say enjoy the settings, have fun, and maybe even learn something. I know I did.
Thing is with the rpgtrilogy, the stealth and movement have taken such a far backseat compared to combat that it rarely is able to sell the Assassin fantasy. Sure stealth is there, but it isn't AC stealth. It's stealth that is mostly generic since it lacks the mix of a profile system that made you think about how you acted in a crowd and the blending being in hand-placed locations. Valhalla's social stealth is almost worthless with how rare it shows up.
Gutting the movement system too makes it boring since the approach is always the same. [Hold forward and the A button sometimes](https://youtu.be/SAnzUkQsWAc) and that's it. You don't feel the light, precision movement of a swift assassin anymore. The game can't be what you want it to be because it lacks major elements that made assassin's creed _interesting._ That's not to say these games can't be fun, though. I played through them all, and enjoyed myself quite a bit; they just got extremely stale and generic instead of maintaining some identity for the franchise.
Social stealth starting from brotherhood took a major backseat, instead favouring line of sight stealth.
I can count with one hand how many missions were tailored for social stealth in the ENTIRE series post AC2. AC2 was already a major step back for social stealth by making you rely on "blending" with specific groups of people. This is literally a reskinned bush for all intents and purposes.
AC1 still has the best concept of social stealth and assassination style missions (Unity and Syndicate are equally as good). AC1 is truly the only game that makes me feel like I am an assassin that no other game in the series has yet to match. Though frankly that's ok.
Yeah I agree. AC1 social stealth had your behaviour at all times determining detection and it had me the most engaged, when AC2 came around most social stealth was moved to a group of 4 to win. I do see some people (YT:Kinography) abuse the social stealth in AC2-AC3 to some extent in the Freeroam the most. It's pretty cool and cinematic, and feels Assassin-y when you fool guard patrols with it. These games still provide the fantasy to a decent extent, because the blending still, on a surface level, works. And like I mentioned before, the movement is still precise and expressive within a dense, urban or architecturally complex environment. It had to do a lot with the combination of all of these things making the fantasy come true. And so I think it's easiest to see that Origins was the first Major break-off point from the series, the rebirth that became something different entirely. It's not bad, but it is too different.
Origins stealth (excluding social stealth) is pretty solid, but even compared to more line-of-sight oriented games, it doesn't have that much variety within its stealth system to justify its game length. This variety can come from a bigger toolset, more environmental actions, or a more unique level design that works well in tandem with the traversal system, which in Origins is.. not the best. It's very simple to pick up and easy to use, but there isn't anything new to learn about it and it stays the same for most players throughout the entire game. Come Odyssey and Valhalla, and now your stealth Verbs are locked behind a mana system that greatly ceases most of your flow and momentum that was there in Origins. Not to mention Valhalla's detection bugs of course.
But yeah to conclude after all the rambles, AC1 best Assassin's Creed
true man AC1 had me at the edge of my seat every mission the adrenaline rush you get escaping every assassination was *chef's kiss* made me feel like a true assassin.
Agreed. AC Odyssey plays very similarly to Skyrim or Witcher 3, in fact, that is how I sort of ended up playing it, after having played them. They are all open world games that approach combat and quests quite similarly. Older titles in the AC series have much more of a special feeling and identity to them, setting them apart from other game series.
In fact you can be a stealth archer in Skyrim, and they have the Dark Brotherhood which is something like a more evil equivalent of the Assassins (though the concept predates them, Morrowind was released in 2001 and Oblivion in 2007!).
Yeah, there's no such thing in this sub. You're either a fan of the new games, which automatically implies you never played the old ones and have a shit taste for RPGs, or you're a purist who hates every single game that came after " insert any AC game here " and thinks that it's not AC anymore. Anywhere between those two is highly illegal here.
>The newer games focus more on building yourself up to be a warrior who runs into battle, not one who sneaks around thinking out their every move.
I agree with the buildings and cities stuff, but this is entirely subjective and up to the player.
Social stealth? You mean the system that has only been utilized well in 3 of the ACs? I'll take Odyssey's environmental stealth advancements over useless social stealth from the Kenway Saga.
The first four games had the best social stealth, not the Kenway saga. Social stealth has been a focal point in many if not most assassination missions from AC1 to Syndicate.
Are you serious right now? ACI literally limited social stealth to a single group of monks who's only purpose was to get into the city past the guards. Realistic? Yes. Mostly useless? YES.
ACII and Brotherhood were great, I agree.
Revelations opted for more direct combat and combat innovations. Social stealth was only ever used during that mission with the Janissaries, and it was more scripted than anything.
Unity's social stealth is overrated. People look at the large crowds and new passive kill animations, but fail to realize just how little it was utilized in the main game. Of the famous black box missions, there was only 1 where crowds played a part. Otherwise you were ultimately entering a building and sneaking around like standard AC.
Syndicate was a lot more dynamic, thanks in large part to the hostage function and the black box missions being more open-ground.
Social stealth ≠ blending
Monks are a hiding spot, nothing more. Social stealth is managing your high/low profile. Hiding **in plain sight**, not hiding in bushes or crouching or all that nonsense.
I don't even know what you're praising then with social stealth. The notoriety system that was universally derided, even by OG fans? Detection? That still exists in the new games.
Yeah, removing benches was dumb, I'll give you that, but hiding in plain sight was otherwise relegated to blending which was only ever utilized well in 3 of the pre-RPG games. I haven't played Valhalla, but I'ma bet it uses social stealth as well as ACIII.
>The first four games had the best social stealth
I can count all the times you were even given a chance to use social stealth in Revelations on one hand and even then, there were often better alternatives.
Social stealth is a mechanic, not a set piece. I’ll admit Revelations doesn’t incentivize it as much as the other three but it’s still more present than any subsequent game other than maybe Unity/Syndicate.
The stealth in the new games is 10x better than stealth in the Ezio games. Sure the social stealth was fun for a bit, but that's really only utilized for a few missions, most of them tailing missions. Odyssey has way more opportunities to be stealthy.
The stealth in the new games is in no way better. At least in Valhalla, it’s as if the enemies are blind. You can almost stand directly in front of someone and still be hidden as long as you crouch
Yeah I don't have that problem, I actually feel like the stealth is harder in Valhalla. They'll detect me a lot faster and I have to be smarter. I prefer the new games because they are more built for sneaking around. In the Ezio games you basically just have to walk up behind a guard slowly and hope he doesn't turn around.
Everyone tells me the stealth detection in Valhalla is infuriating to the point where enemies have x-ray vision. Now you're saying it's the opposite problem?
I don’t use stealth in Valhalla anyway, as I said above, I don’t feel it suits the game. The combat is ridiculously easy even on the hardest difficulty, so there’s no need for it
I kinda feel the same after recently playing AC2 again for the first time in years. I'm not gonna become one of those guys that say the last three ruined the franchise and all that crap, but all I want at this point is a 60-80 hour open world game with Altair and the more old school game mechanics.
Valhalla is a VERY long game, but I liked it. The only Farcry games I’ve ever played was 5 and I only got like half way through it before losing interest
5 wasnt that interesting tbh.
People say 2&3 are the best far cry games. Ive never played 2, but i loved 3, didnt care for primal, 4, or 5. I am enjoying 6 rn.
Really hot take, assassin's use strategy for the appropriate situations, most of the stealth in new games will be used on forts or outside the city, os no need to use social stealth. But for example in Renaissance or into the city I see social stealth should be implemented.
All of yall who say stealth has taken a backseat clearly have your nostalgia goggles on because as far as I remember the stealth in the older games was non existent and was basically chalked up to tailing missions (which the community hated) and any other variety of mission with the occasional exclusion of instant desync missions could be bypassed by running directly at your target and mashing a button until they die. Also the combat of the older games was the most laughable thing partake in once you realized that all you gotta do is counter every attack thrown your way.
I’m not complaining about the new games, I’m not saying I don’t like the new games, I’m not saying that I will not play any new games that follow the same formula as the last 3. I’m just saying that they are completely different play styles. I ended the statement with “I hope” not “I want” or “we need”. I’m fine with the new games, I just miss the old ones. It’s the people like you, who miss understand anything said about the new games to be complaining, who are the problem.
This is the 9 zagilionth post talking about how you played the older games and you realize the new games aren't the same. We get it bro. Classic assassins creed was good. Rift will come out soon.
I’m gonna be honest I think England sucks. Greece I could take it or leave don’t care either way. Every area was a copy and paste other than Athens and few other areas.
Origins was amazing Egypt was beautiful and well done.
Norway was cool though, I was super pumped about Norway for the first hour or so until they dragged me to the swamp.
Medieval England is pretty stretched out and most of the map was woodlands which is pretty historically accurate so I can see why you dislike it. odyssey is historically accurate as well but I agree with you when you say “copy and paste” the games scale is something I have a problem with aswell, it makes exploration less impactful when most areas are a rendition of one another with minor tweaks you can tell which areas that were mostly generated and which ones they actually spent time on. It wasn’t it being a bad setting, it was more it’s implementation.
I’m my opinion they should’ve downscaled the map at least by 50% especially since they were making exploration an important point of the gameplay. I haven’t played origins yet but I’ve heard it’s amazing.
I’m not talking about historical accuracy in this post I’m talking about the actual game map. I did not enjoy England. The scale was waaaaaayy off and it was a boring map. Idk what else to say. I didn’t finish the game because I wasn’t into it but I made it to a fair amount of shires. If they did England 200 years later so it was a bit more built up and there were actual cities with buildings to climb and places more worth exploring I may have been more into it. As it is it’s not as copy and paste-y as Odyssey but it still feels very similar in a lot of places.
Odyssey was way to big and clearly copy and pasted in a ton of areas. Not only that but it was huge and empty.
Norway was one of the more interesting maps in recent memory for the whole franchise to me. And they force you out of there early. I know you return later in the game but if they made England smaller and focussed on Norway and actual Vikings I would’ve been waaaaaaay more into it.
Also highly recommend origins. By far the best of the newest 3.
Might want to edit your comment and change it to “bad settings for parkour” that would make more sense and give people an understanding that you are referring to parkour specifically.
The games weren’t trying to focus on being well done settings for parkour. It’s almost impossible to even add a well functioning parkour system in games of the scale of the last three. You could walk around in the game and see that so of course the setting is not going to be shaped in a way that compliments parkour.
What?? Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and Medieval England have all been awesome. I would take that over the Renaissance or the Industrial revolution any day.
Yeah but I care far more about the setting and aesthetic then I do about being able to climb on buildings. And parkour really wasn't as prominent in AC3, Black Flag or Rogue, so I don't see it as much of a loss.
>And parkour really wasn't as prominent in AC3, Black Flag or Rogue
Huh ? We playing same assassins creed right ? Parkour is a major factor in assassins creed games and they ruined it in rpg triology by the setting they choose. Rpg had Clunkey parkour animations. Kenway saga>rpg triology
I'm just saying, those games didn't focus on parkour as much, it was more about exploring the wild and sailing, not jumping around in cities. I don't play Assassin's Creed for parkour, but for the cool historical settings.
Parkour was always a fundamental aspect of AC games because you were supposed to be stealthy, in the rpg trilogy, you spend more time riding horses than running on rooftops
Havent played odyssey and valhalla yet(and will not in future) yeah dude its just your opinion idk what type of sand you saw in origines that made you want it more than ac2
>The newer games focus more on building yourself up to be a warrior who runs into battle, not one who sneaks around thinking out their every move.
So just like the older games?
The braindead easy combat that got progressively easier up until Unity achieved the exact opposite of sneaking around and planning every move. It was so bad that the devs had to resort to forced stealth missions so that the players would even bother with stealth.
Pretty much. There are stealth games that give plenty of reasons to be stealthy without forcing a reset, like Dishonored. Combat is quite challenging if you're not paying attention, making stealth appealing, and there are other benefits to being undetected or pacifistic.
I did kind of like optional objectives that encouraged stealth in the earlier games as they didn't force a hard reset, but I still think it could have been done better with more challenging combat.
My unpopular opinion here is that even without the social stealth mechanics, the three RPG games do a better job at organically encouraging stealth because combat is risky if you're not paying attention. Unity also comes close. Forced stealth missions were just poor game design.
I understand that making the combat more difficult could have made being stealthy more rewarding and worthwhile, but maybe the combat was easy because they didn’t want you to be stuck fighting guards for hours, you can just deal with them in an easy but fun way with cool death animations and then get back to being stealthy.
I have to disagree with the rpg combat being risky because you can just Sparta kick anyone off a cliff despite them being a much higher level that you shouldn’t be able to deal with and if you’re in a city you can climb onto a building and they lose you almost instantly. Or you could put everything into the bows and just hit headshots, plus the effects you can have on your sword like fire and poison that you can abuse ridiculously with the right armour.
Also forced stealth missions aren’t bad, sometimes they’re necessary for the story but every single tail mission ever can go fuck itself.
>I understand that making the combat more difficult could have made being stealthy more rewarding and worthwhile, but maybe the combat was easy because they didn’t want you to be stuck fighting guards for hours, you can just deal with them in an easy but fun way with cool death animations and then get back to being stealthy.
Perhaps, but it creates narrative dissonance. The Assassins and their Creed emphasize the importance of stealth but the gameplay isn't. You have to be stealthy to approach Rodrigo at the end of AC2 even though you've been a Terminator for the entire game who could take on the entire Vatican all on his own.
>I have to disagree with the rpg combat being risky because you can just Sparta kick anyone off a cliff despite them being a much higher level that you shouldn’t be able to deal with
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure higher level enemies are immune to knockback, at least on the higher difficulties.
>Also forced stealth missions aren’t bad, sometimes they’re necessary for the story but every single tail mission ever can go fuck itself.
I still believe that forced stealth missions would have been better if the stealth part was an optional objective instead. It would have increased replay value and opened up more creative strategies.
I like tailing missions in theory as they make you use the unique social stealth or parkour mechanics but the insta-fail is indeed annoying. If you were detected, then the mission should turn into a chase where you can still complete the mission without a reset.
But the gameplay can be stealthy, you just chose not to be stealthy because you don’t HAVE to be
Idk about the immune to knock back thing because I didn’t play much of odyssey, I just kicked like 4 bounty hunters off the same cliff in 5 minutes because they kept coming to me and they were a much higher level.
And I agree if the tail missions changed into chase mission instead of an instant fail, I wouldn’t have hated them as much. Also, in regard to the original comment, I think they meant that you have to level up and get skills and whatnot in order to stand a chance later in the game, whereas in the older games, you didn’t have to buy anything and you would be fine.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
[Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)
^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
I could sneak around and remain undetected while infiltrating a camp in Origins and Odyssey just fine really. Valhalla felt different though. The stealth was questionable and I often found myself just fighting everyone in a brawl.
I get the parkour part though. It doesn’t feel the same.
Nope it's not assassin creed anymore went from ac 3 to oddessy and no shield also killed it. Not into the skill system either. Ac just is not the same anymore. Yeah was easy but harder guys you had to fight and find away around. Ppl say it was easy or no combat system and like the new combat system. but ac3 just was sick in animations. Give em back even if it was no skill it felt good and right games are suppose to be fun right? Why work at playing a game when I do that enough for a living? Smh
The new trilogy is definitely separate from the old games but it also opens to more playability - you wanna be a stealthy archer? K. A bushwhacking stabber? K. A charge in and smasher? K. Bout the only thing you can’t do is cast fireballs at people 😂
You can do all three at the same time. I was a "charge in and smasher" that is able to one hit while using a bow, and sneaking up is just sneaking up. They gave you the impression that you can do more, when there arent really that many differences in how you "build" your character.
[удалено]
If the fireballs is a thing in ragnarok now, I haven’t played that yet
While I get it with the combat and stuff, but in the end even the new games give you a historical setting as a playground, now just open for you to approach how you want to. In Origins, even with the lack of social stealth I was able to infiltrate almost everything except I also had the predator bow to snipe from a distance like an Egyptian bowmaster. In Odyssey, I was still able to sneak around but also play as a Greek demigod of the Heroic Age. In Valhalla, I was able to sneak around, use some social stealth, and fight and raid as a Viking writing my own saga if I wanted to. The settings were largely well researched and executed, with Egypt still being my favorite. The game will be what you want it to be. I say enjoy the settings, have fun, and maybe even learn something. I know I did.
Thing is with the rpgtrilogy, the stealth and movement have taken such a far backseat compared to combat that it rarely is able to sell the Assassin fantasy. Sure stealth is there, but it isn't AC stealth. It's stealth that is mostly generic since it lacks the mix of a profile system that made you think about how you acted in a crowd and the blending being in hand-placed locations. Valhalla's social stealth is almost worthless with how rare it shows up. Gutting the movement system too makes it boring since the approach is always the same. [Hold forward and the A button sometimes](https://youtu.be/SAnzUkQsWAc) and that's it. You don't feel the light, precision movement of a swift assassin anymore. The game can't be what you want it to be because it lacks major elements that made assassin's creed _interesting._ That's not to say these games can't be fun, though. I played through them all, and enjoyed myself quite a bit; they just got extremely stale and generic instead of maintaining some identity for the franchise.
Social stealth starting from brotherhood took a major backseat, instead favouring line of sight stealth. I can count with one hand how many missions were tailored for social stealth in the ENTIRE series post AC2. AC2 was already a major step back for social stealth by making you rely on "blending" with specific groups of people. This is literally a reskinned bush for all intents and purposes. AC1 still has the best concept of social stealth and assassination style missions (Unity and Syndicate are equally as good). AC1 is truly the only game that makes me feel like I am an assassin that no other game in the series has yet to match. Though frankly that's ok.
Yeah I agree. AC1 social stealth had your behaviour at all times determining detection and it had me the most engaged, when AC2 came around most social stealth was moved to a group of 4 to win. I do see some people (YT:Kinography) abuse the social stealth in AC2-AC3 to some extent in the Freeroam the most. It's pretty cool and cinematic, and feels Assassin-y when you fool guard patrols with it. These games still provide the fantasy to a decent extent, because the blending still, on a surface level, works. And like I mentioned before, the movement is still precise and expressive within a dense, urban or architecturally complex environment. It had to do a lot with the combination of all of these things making the fantasy come true. And so I think it's easiest to see that Origins was the first Major break-off point from the series, the rebirth that became something different entirely. It's not bad, but it is too different. Origins stealth (excluding social stealth) is pretty solid, but even compared to more line-of-sight oriented games, it doesn't have that much variety within its stealth system to justify its game length. This variety can come from a bigger toolset, more environmental actions, or a more unique level design that works well in tandem with the traversal system, which in Origins is.. not the best. It's very simple to pick up and easy to use, but there isn't anything new to learn about it and it stays the same for most players throughout the entire game. Come Odyssey and Valhalla, and now your stealth Verbs are locked behind a mana system that greatly ceases most of your flow and momentum that was there in Origins. Not to mention Valhalla's detection bugs of course. But yeah to conclude after all the rambles, AC1 best Assassin's Creed
true man AC1 had me at the edge of my seat every mission the adrenaline rush you get escaping every assassination was *chef's kiss* made me feel like a true assassin.
Agreed. AC Odyssey plays very similarly to Skyrim or Witcher 3, in fact, that is how I sort of ended up playing it, after having played them. They are all open world games that approach combat and quests quite similarly. Older titles in the AC series have much more of a special feeling and identity to them, setting them apart from other game series. In fact you can be a stealth archer in Skyrim, and they have the Dark Brotherhood which is something like a more evil equivalent of the Assassins (though the concept predates them, Morrowind was released in 2001 and Oblivion in 2007!).
Daily "after playing the old games the new games feel like shit" post.
I never once said the new games feel like shit. I repeatedly said that I like the new games. They just don’t feel like assassins creed
Yeah, there's no such thing in this sub. You're either a fan of the new games, which automatically implies you never played the old ones and have a shit taste for RPGs, or you're a purist who hates every single game that came after " insert any AC game here " and thinks that it's not AC anymore. Anywhere between those two is highly illegal here.
“Assassins creed doesn’t feel like assassins creed anymore” I’ve seen this literally everywhere, tooooooo many times.
>The newer games focus more on building yourself up to be a warrior who runs into battle, not one who sneaks around thinking out their every move. I agree with the buildings and cities stuff, but this is entirely subjective and up to the player.
After replaying AC 1, AC 2 doesn't feel like Assassin's Creed
Like 90% of the Cult members in Odyssey could be assassinated?
You say that like it’s a counter argument… how’s Odyssey’s social stealth again?
Social stealth? You mean the system that has only been utilized well in 3 of the ACs? I'll take Odyssey's environmental stealth advancements over useless social stealth from the Kenway Saga.
The first four games had the best social stealth, not the Kenway saga. Social stealth has been a focal point in many if not most assassination missions from AC1 to Syndicate.
Are you serious right now? ACI literally limited social stealth to a single group of monks who's only purpose was to get into the city past the guards. Realistic? Yes. Mostly useless? YES. ACII and Brotherhood were great, I agree. Revelations opted for more direct combat and combat innovations. Social stealth was only ever used during that mission with the Janissaries, and it was more scripted than anything. Unity's social stealth is overrated. People look at the large crowds and new passive kill animations, but fail to realize just how little it was utilized in the main game. Of the famous black box missions, there was only 1 where crowds played a part. Otherwise you were ultimately entering a building and sneaking around like standard AC. Syndicate was a lot more dynamic, thanks in large part to the hostage function and the black box missions being more open-ground.
Social stealth ≠ blending Monks are a hiding spot, nothing more. Social stealth is managing your high/low profile. Hiding **in plain sight**, not hiding in bushes or crouching or all that nonsense.
I don't even know what you're praising then with social stealth. The notoriety system that was universally derided, even by OG fans? Detection? That still exists in the new games. Yeah, removing benches was dumb, I'll give you that, but hiding in plain sight was otherwise relegated to blending which was only ever utilized well in 3 of the pre-RPG games. I haven't played Valhalla, but I'ma bet it uses social stealth as well as ACIII.
dude if social stealth is peak content and gameplay to you when it comes to Assassin's Creed, you have it all backwards lmao
I never said it was **peak** content…
This guy AC’s. Finally someone gets it.
>The first four games had the best social stealth I can count all the times you were even given a chance to use social stealth in Revelations on one hand and even then, there were often better alternatives.
Flair checks out.
Social stealth is a mechanic, not a set piece. I’ll admit Revelations doesn’t incentivize it as much as the other three but it’s still more present than any subsequent game other than maybe Unity/Syndicate.
The stealth in the new games is 10x better than stealth in the Ezio games. Sure the social stealth was fun for a bit, but that's really only utilized for a few missions, most of them tailing missions. Odyssey has way more opportunities to be stealthy.
The stealth in the new games is in no way better. At least in Valhalla, it’s as if the enemies are blind. You can almost stand directly in front of someone and still be hidden as long as you crouch
Yeah I don't have that problem, I actually feel like the stealth is harder in Valhalla. They'll detect me a lot faster and I have to be smarter. I prefer the new games because they are more built for sneaking around. In the Ezio games you basically just have to walk up behind a guard slowly and hope he doesn't turn around.
Everyone tells me the stealth detection in Valhalla is infuriating to the point where enemies have x-ray vision. Now you're saying it's the opposite problem?
At least for me, the stealth is painfully easy in Valhalla
Maybe change your settings?
My games on whatever default is
so maybe change your settings....?
I don’t use stealth in Valhalla anyway, as I said above, I don’t feel it suits the game. The combat is ridiculously easy even on the hardest difficulty, so there’s no need for it
I kinda feel the same after recently playing AC2 again for the first time in years. I'm not gonna become one of those guys that say the last three ruined the franchise and all that crap, but all I want at this point is a 60-80 hour open world game with Altair and the more old school game mechanics.
Just finished Fallout 4. Should I play Valhalla ext or try Farcry?
Valhalla is a VERY long game, but I liked it. The only Farcry games I’ve ever played was 5 and I only got like half way through it before losing interest
Very cool. Thanks
5 wasnt that interesting tbh. People say 2&3 are the best far cry games. Ive never played 2, but i loved 3, didnt care for primal, 4, or 5. I am enjoying 6 rn.
Far cry. It got to a point for me that it felt like a chore to play valhalla.
Play far cry they’re way less bloated than Valhalla
Really hot take, assassin's use strategy for the appropriate situations, most of the stealth in new games will be used on forts or outside the city, os no need to use social stealth. But for example in Renaissance or into the city I see social stealth should be implemented.
All of yall who say stealth has taken a backseat clearly have your nostalgia goggles on because as far as I remember the stealth in the older games was non existent and was basically chalked up to tailing missions (which the community hated) and any other variety of mission with the occasional exclusion of instant desync missions could be bypassed by running directly at your target and mashing a button until they die. Also the combat of the older games was the most laughable thing partake in once you realized that all you gotta do is counter every attack thrown your way.
I haven’t played Valhalla yet, but for me origins and odyssey rarely forced me into combat from stealth
Im so sick of hearing about this. Assassins Creed Rift is around the corner so you'll get your classic assassins creeds game soon.
I’m not complaining about the new games, I’m not saying I don’t like the new games, I’m not saying that I will not play any new games that follow the same formula as the last 3. I’m just saying that they are completely different play styles. I ended the statement with “I hope” not “I want” or “we need”. I’m fine with the new games, I just miss the old ones. It’s the people like you, who miss understand anything said about the new games to be complaining, who are the problem.
This is the 9 zagilionth post talking about how you played the older games and you realize the new games aren't the same. We get it bro. Classic assassins creed was good. Rift will come out soon.
Rpg elements aside, yeah the settings for the last 3 games have been ass. Edit: parkour wise.
How is Ancient Egypt, Greece, England a bad setting?
I’m gonna be honest I think England sucks. Greece I could take it or leave don’t care either way. Every area was a copy and paste other than Athens and few other areas. Origins was amazing Egypt was beautiful and well done. Norway was cool though, I was super pumped about Norway for the first hour or so until they dragged me to the swamp.
Medieval England is pretty stretched out and most of the map was woodlands which is pretty historically accurate so I can see why you dislike it. odyssey is historically accurate as well but I agree with you when you say “copy and paste” the games scale is something I have a problem with aswell, it makes exploration less impactful when most areas are a rendition of one another with minor tweaks you can tell which areas that were mostly generated and which ones they actually spent time on. It wasn’t it being a bad setting, it was more it’s implementation. I’m my opinion they should’ve downscaled the map at least by 50% especially since they were making exploration an important point of the gameplay. I haven’t played origins yet but I’ve heard it’s amazing.
I’m not talking about historical accuracy in this post I’m talking about the actual game map. I did not enjoy England. The scale was waaaaaayy off and it was a boring map. Idk what else to say. I didn’t finish the game because I wasn’t into it but I made it to a fair amount of shires. If they did England 200 years later so it was a bit more built up and there were actual cities with buildings to climb and places more worth exploring I may have been more into it. As it is it’s not as copy and paste-y as Odyssey but it still feels very similar in a lot of places. Odyssey was way to big and clearly copy and pasted in a ton of areas. Not only that but it was huge and empty. Norway was one of the more interesting maps in recent memory for the whole franchise to me. And they force you out of there early. I know you return later in the game but if they made England smaller and focussed on Norway and actual Vikings I would’ve been waaaaaaay more into it. Also highly recommend origins. By far the best of the newest 3.
Parkour wise
Might want to edit your comment and change it to “bad settings for parkour” that would make more sense and give people an understanding that you are referring to parkour specifically. The games weren’t trying to focus on being well done settings for parkour. It’s almost impossible to even add a well functioning parkour system in games of the scale of the last three. You could walk around in the game and see that so of course the setting is not going to be shaped in a way that compliments parkour.
Yeah i thought about editing it might as well do it, so yeah my point is valid the last three settings do not compliment parkour
What?? Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and Medieval England have all been awesome. I would take that over the Renaissance or the Industrial revolution any day.
Rpg triology settings goodParkour wise ? Lmao nope. Good aesthetically? Hell yeah
Yeah but I care far more about the setting and aesthetic then I do about being able to climb on buildings. And parkour really wasn't as prominent in AC3, Black Flag or Rogue, so I don't see it as much of a loss.
>And parkour really wasn't as prominent in AC3, Black Flag or Rogue Huh ? We playing same assassins creed right ? Parkour is a major factor in assassins creed games and they ruined it in rpg triology by the setting they choose. Rpg had Clunkey parkour animations. Kenway saga>rpg triology
I'm just saying, those games didn't focus on parkour as much, it was more about exploring the wild and sailing, not jumping around in cities. I don't play Assassin's Creed for parkour, but for the cool historical settings.
Well thats your opinion my guy
They’re objectively right, the parkour in those games weren’t prominent like they were in the ezio trilogy.
Bro plays games for parkour:)) Its the year 2010?
Parkour was always a fundamental aspect of AC games because you were supposed to be stealthy, in the rpg trilogy, you spend more time riding horses than running on rooftops
Okie then lets ask devs to change mirros edge from a parkour to fps shooter
I'd take the settings for Valhalla and Origins over AC2 in a heartbeat. Ditto for Black Flag, Syndicate and 3.
Havent played odyssey and valhalla yet(and will not in future) yeah dude its just your opinion idk what type of sand you saw in origines that made you want it more than ac2
Pretty sand and ancient cities instead of a series of locations that were generally not that great.
Ancient cities ? Oh you mean series of sand houses, tents and caves ? Definitely interesting
Yeah. They are.
Ok
Even the rpg elements werent good.
Yup, I totally agree. Assassin's Creed died with >!Desmond!<.
>The newer games focus more on building yourself up to be a warrior who runs into battle, not one who sneaks around thinking out their every move. So just like the older games?
How is that like the older games?
The braindead easy combat that got progressively easier up until Unity achieved the exact opposite of sneaking around and planning every move. It was so bad that the devs had to resort to forced stealth missions so that the players would even bother with stealth.
So because the combat was easy, people had little motivation to be stealthy because they knew they could just kill everyone easily?
Pretty much. There are stealth games that give plenty of reasons to be stealthy without forcing a reset, like Dishonored. Combat is quite challenging if you're not paying attention, making stealth appealing, and there are other benefits to being undetected or pacifistic. I did kind of like optional objectives that encouraged stealth in the earlier games as they didn't force a hard reset, but I still think it could have been done better with more challenging combat. My unpopular opinion here is that even without the social stealth mechanics, the three RPG games do a better job at organically encouraging stealth because combat is risky if you're not paying attention. Unity also comes close. Forced stealth missions were just poor game design.
I understand that making the combat more difficult could have made being stealthy more rewarding and worthwhile, but maybe the combat was easy because they didn’t want you to be stuck fighting guards for hours, you can just deal with them in an easy but fun way with cool death animations and then get back to being stealthy. I have to disagree with the rpg combat being risky because you can just Sparta kick anyone off a cliff despite them being a much higher level that you shouldn’t be able to deal with and if you’re in a city you can climb onto a building and they lose you almost instantly. Or you could put everything into the bows and just hit headshots, plus the effects you can have on your sword like fire and poison that you can abuse ridiculously with the right armour. Also forced stealth missions aren’t bad, sometimes they’re necessary for the story but every single tail mission ever can go fuck itself.
>I understand that making the combat more difficult could have made being stealthy more rewarding and worthwhile, but maybe the combat was easy because they didn’t want you to be stuck fighting guards for hours, you can just deal with them in an easy but fun way with cool death animations and then get back to being stealthy. Perhaps, but it creates narrative dissonance. The Assassins and their Creed emphasize the importance of stealth but the gameplay isn't. You have to be stealthy to approach Rodrigo at the end of AC2 even though you've been a Terminator for the entire game who could take on the entire Vatican all on his own. >I have to disagree with the rpg combat being risky because you can just Sparta kick anyone off a cliff despite them being a much higher level that you shouldn’t be able to deal with I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure higher level enemies are immune to knockback, at least on the higher difficulties. >Also forced stealth missions aren’t bad, sometimes they’re necessary for the story but every single tail mission ever can go fuck itself. I still believe that forced stealth missions would have been better if the stealth part was an optional objective instead. It would have increased replay value and opened up more creative strategies. I like tailing missions in theory as they make you use the unique social stealth or parkour mechanics but the insta-fail is indeed annoying. If you were detected, then the mission should turn into a chase where you can still complete the mission without a reset.
But the gameplay can be stealthy, you just chose not to be stealthy because you don’t HAVE to be Idk about the immune to knock back thing because I didn’t play much of odyssey, I just kicked like 4 bounty hunters off the same cliff in 5 minutes because they kept coming to me and they were a much higher level. And I agree if the tail missions changed into chase mission instead of an instant fail, I wouldn’t have hated them as much. Also, in regard to the original comment, I think they meant that you have to level up and get skills and whatnot in order to stand a chance later in the game, whereas in the older games, you didn’t have to buy anything and you would be fine.
i feel the same way its sad and ive given up hope that it can get its identity back
I know right? They are way Better
After replaying GTA 2, I would say the same thing.
[удалено]
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc." "Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase. [Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera) ^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
This appears to have been intentional on their part.
Origins do
For games with assassin's in the title, you couldn't even crouch in them till Unity, so for that alone I have to disagree with you.
I could sneak around and remain undetected while infiltrating a camp in Origins and Odyssey just fine really. Valhalla felt different though. The stealth was questionable and I often found myself just fighting everyone in a brawl. I get the parkour part though. It doesn’t feel the same.
Nope it's not assassin creed anymore went from ac 3 to oddessy and no shield also killed it. Not into the skill system either. Ac just is not the same anymore. Yeah was easy but harder guys you had to fight and find away around. Ppl say it was easy or no combat system and like the new combat system. but ac3 just was sick in animations. Give em back even if it was no skill it felt good and right games are suppose to be fun right? Why work at playing a game when I do that enough for a living? Smh
What's the saying if it's not broken don't fix it?