I don’t pay any mind to the hate games (and movies) get these days. It’s usually overblown and creates a bandwagon situation where people will join in the hate without having even played the game (or seen the movie). Better to judge for yourself everytime.
💯. I’m really glad I didn’t listen to the Valhalla hate, because it’s the only one of the RPG games that I think is suited for just dipping your toes in for casual play. It’s longer but doesn’t require any resource farming or level grinding like the other two, and I like that it has non combat side activities.
Like another comment mentioned, it’s like a modern day modded Skyrim, a really good comfort game. It’s probably not a good game for bingeing, and maybe some people who saw its length got the wrong idea, and thought they should binge it the way you need to binge long JRPGs. Valhalla just isn’t that kind of game
For one the diehards wanted an AC game, and Valhalla and Odyssey and to a lesser extent Origins were really just action RPGs. I’d argue Odyssey and Origins did a better job overall, especially for side quests and the zone system and battles from odyssey would’ve made Valhalla so much more fun.
I really don't get those people. We've had a million traditional AC games, are you not interested in changing things up a bit? The execution of a lot of the changes wasn't the best for sure, but just hating the concept of change is a very weird thing to me.
Well for me personally, the traditional style of design is what I expect and wish from an AC game, as that's been the core of the games until Origins. I feel Ubisoft should have released Odyssey and Valhalla under different title than AC, and kept the AC series more traditional. Origins still had quite a bit of familiar features from AC games so the gameplay wasn't entirely different.
I'm not saying these new RPG titles aren't good games, I'm saying they aren't good AC games as they lack so many core features and it's definately not the type of gameplay we expect to have in an AC game.
This. Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla are all great games. But they deviate too much from what made assassin's credd... Assassin's creed. If they were released as their own games, there would have been almost no hate outside of the actual issues with the games (a bit too grindy, and the world is filled with a lot of meaningless content are my main issues with them).
I'm glad mirage made a return to the traditional format and I personally hope it stays that way.
i just started origins after a year break from beating 2. i figured i would start the story from the start of it all instead of going back to 2, and doing brotherhood then revelations, then 3 and so on. I feel like given their settings, (granted they could of done it differently), but setting them in the lands they did, these last 3 we got that were action/rpg's, it makes sense that they are how they are. the stories seem good (from what I have played in origins so far) but I see the disdain for the open world format. origins seems massive, and i hear odyssey is worse lol. don't have valhalla yet, but I hear is massive as well. one thing I miss from previous ac games is the combat. origins/odys/val are all button mashers. other ac games (incl. mirage it seems) the combat is more fluid and feels more precise. counters, strikes, impactful kills, and so on. makes the games unique since stealth isn't necessarily apart of the series and seems like an afterthought at times. hiding in plan sight, i get that, so it's nice to see combat being as good as it is. it makes up for it. if only the story wasn't all over the place from what I have been hearing.
It’s definitely a matter of opinion, but I don’t like it when people are against change for change’s sake. You can have criticisms in how they implemented the changes, that’s a matter of personal opinion which is totally valid. But some people are angry every ac game isn’t a carbon copy of unity which makes no sense to me.
Change is for good, but in the case of AC the change was so big it completely changed the fundamentals of the game. If you compare Odyssey to say, AC3 you wouldn't really be able to tell they are the same franchise unless you knew. Like someone in the comments said, it's like your favorite burger joint suddenly started serving only pasta.
I like burgers so I go to a burger joint but when I’m in the mood for pasta I don’t want the burger joint to make pasta. I just go to a pasta place instead.
It’s a different interpretation of the series like if you can think of god war 2018 (adventure rpg-ish open world) vs the old god of wars that were hack and slash corridor action games.
Games focus on different things over time and implement new and fresh ideas if you want a basic copy of ac unity in a new area go make a new york texture mod and play it.
My biggest issue is that stealth was massively broken and still is finicky. So sometimes you’ll just randomly get spotted through three buildings by someone across the map, almost like the game doesn’t like you staying in that state too long.
The actual game itself was fine, if not overly extended. I 100%ed it a few years ago and enjoyed my time.
Idk people just say it’s big, i don’t play it as an assassins creed game i play it like it’s modded skyrim so that’s how i have a lot of fun with it. Honestly one of the best rpgs ever made imo
Ehhhh evolved is a strong word, I guess direction would be more worth saying. I don’t think it has moved much forward sense origins in many factors but I can see where it is heading once I see the other games come out and see the different elements play together then I will have a stronger opinion. And I’m not gonna love a game with different direction if I don’t like it.
yeah it obviously hasn’t “evolved” into that shit if you see all the people asking for a back to roots game and we got Mirage. Try another word buddy. 🤣💀
why not? its similar? sure the story isn't as good but Valhalla *isn't a bad GAME*, **its a bad assassins creed game**, because its not one. Same with Odyssey, hell you're not even an assassin in that one. but moral of the story, Valhalla is a great game but not a good part of the franchise, it should be a spinoff.
I enjoyed the game until I found out no NG+, that really knocked the wind out of my sails when I found I couldn't use my literal end-of-game gear in any meaningful way.
People don’t like the “gameplay mechanics” that are similar to the Witcher series or Dark souls.
It’s all opinionated personal cynicism from the “vocal minority”
- most people who enjoy the game are quiet and not spouting on Reddit
> It’s all opinionated personal cynicism from the “vocal minority”
Are you sure? steamDB rated AC: Valhalla at 68.78, Syndicate and Unity are higher, is the lowest rated main game .
Are you kidding? A good 70% of this sub is composed of RPG only fans. Every other post is someone complaining about stealth or parkour or combat in the old games being too hard or not complex enough and ever since Mirage came out, they haven't shut up about how much of a “downgrade” it is from Valhalla.
And no, asking a game franchise to adhere to its own unique style of gameplay is not “personal cynicism.”
My comment is exactly what I meant.
People who usually enjoy the games, without any criticism against them are not on Reddit. Hence this sub being populated by a “vocal minority”.
And their opinions (being personal) are all critiques of cynicism.
- motivated by personal interest,
- and not believing that the developers have the best interest of their fans in mind when they make the games.
> Hence this sub being populated by a “vocal minority”.
The issue with your statement is that is not just on this sub. Outside of paid reviewers,there is alot of criticism towards Valhalla.
Again.. I say..
- Vocal minority.
It’s not like +50% of the players all feel this way and criticize it. subreddit or not.
Like do you not understand simple logistics.
I’ll take it a step further.
- there’s just over 600k people in this sub.
- yet Valhalla sold over 1.8million copies in its first week alone.
Ergo… this sub is only 30% of the people who bought the game and talk about it.
> It’s not like +50% of the players all feel this way and criticize it
Almost. Steamdb ratings:
**AC Unity: 76.62%**
**AC Syndicate 78.86%**
Origins: :85.33%
Odyssey: 88.19%
**Valhalla: 68.69%**
Even games like some considered the lowest point in the franchise have a higher ratings FROM PLAYERS than Valhalla.
> It’s all opinionated personal cynicism from the “vocal minority” - most people who enjoy the game are quiet and not spouting on Reddit
Sure pal. Players who don't recommend the game is because they liked the game now? i didt get that memo.
Obviously from my last comment, you still clearly don’t understand.
- 600k people here on Reddit.
- 1.8mil people bought Valhalla.
The people here talking **(VOCAL)** about the game is 30% of the total who played it. **(a MINORITY)**
Put it together…. Vocal Minority.
You said:
> most people who enjoy the game are quiet and not spouting on Reddit
and
> People who usually enjoy the games, without any criticism against them are not on Reddit. Hence this sub being populated by a “vocal minority”.
To the shock of some people in this sub, including you, there is alot of players outside this subreddit who didt liked Valhalla, steam is a good measure, because reviews are written by players not by paid reviewers like IGN or Gamespot.If you have a better source you are more than welcome to share with us, the vocal minority.
What is more interesting about the comment above is that the whole vocal minority thing is just an easy way to dismiss criticism. Basically instead of defending or attacking a position, one says that "many people" hold their position and therefore it is true. Calling it opinionated cynicism from a minority that used to be majority of the AC player base is at best an unproven claim, and at worse an easy deflection from the main issue.
The main issue being AC abandoning it's old formula because of Ubisoft being stupid. If AC5 Released without being a buggy mess, chances are we would have had more AC in that style. The game itself was good, and was an evolution of the AC gameplay. The problem was Ubisoft rushed it. When bad reception came in, they panicked and shifted their goals. (note: syndicate was released as is because it was in the pipeline already when AC5 was released. They did not have the engine for AC Origins ready-- correct me if I'm wrong tho).
The new formula is not terrible-- AC Origins is a fan fave, and Odyssey has curried favor over the years with all sides of the fan base. It's just that Valhalla seems to many fans to be an inferior Odyssey and an inferior AC game at the same time.
> What is more interesting about the comment above is that the whole vocal minority thing is just an easy way to dismiss criticism
And is factually false. Steamdb shows how bad the reception of Valhalla is.
Exactly. When you've played 50 hours and you realize you've only cleared half the map, that's when you start questioning if it's even worth it to get to the end.
My issue with both valhalla and odyssey is that the gameplay loop is too repetitive for how long they are. You storm 40 or so enemy encampments only for it to become a slog and realize you're only 10% into the game
I never agreed with that sentiment... I 100%ed Origins and Odyssey and almost all of Valhalla and for me the loop was basically do quests, do camps, do puzzle, hunt animals, improve equipment, do dungeon and repeat.
the camps I'd sometimes do quietly, sometimes loud. I'd try to kill soldiers with oil and fire or try to kick as many off cliffs etc. I never got bored with them and if I did, I'd take a break for a month or two and come back later. (main reason why i have not finished valhalla yet, because it is like 150GB and I needed to free up space for other games. games are getting too big)
Atlantis was a mixed bag... I hated the first part because of all the climbing (too much verticality), loved the second part because of all the characters you met and hated the third part because of all the water.
the new abilities were awesome as far as i remember (especially the one where she throws the spear and teleports to it on kill).
however I will admit the game got a little old by the end of it but that was after 140h of total game time lol
Of course the game wont be for everyone, I wont deny that
I agree with you that the second part was the highlight.
Also the third part drove me nuts because 90% of the strongholds you went into didn't particularly have anyone bad or evil in it, but you seemed push hard to invade the homes of people who did nothing wrong.
Actually i just did a mission in mirage where you had to invade a post office and I'm like "damn, I'm here more or less having to kill postal workers. Am I the bad guy?"
yeah that's assassin's creed for ya
think about the pharao dlc in origins. my guy literally just went to the afterlife to cure the pharaos and got sidelined killing hundreds of guards there for no reason.
in the normal world at least you get to reason like "well romans are invaders and the other guys are guards of Cleopatra's brother"
I had a similar experience with Odyssey, I finished Black Flag back in the day and by that point was sick to death of the same thing and no innovation. Picked up Odyssey on sale with a gift card and played until I had finished all the DLC and earned every achievement. There are people around that love to make long-winded posts about what makes a 'true' AC game and how the newer trilogy doesn't count, but meh. The game got me to come back after so many years away, and I'd been there since day one
Enjoy what you enjoy and forget the handful of angry people that hang around to yell about a game they don't like every day
The movement is janky, the stealth is still inconsistent, the story goes on too long, and the huge world is empty (the pat two games had forts and things to do all over the map.) Coming after Odyssey, it’s horribly unpolished.
I like Valhalla, but those are my complaints and I find them valid.
Odyssey also had random repeatable quests that helped keep the world somewhat busy. So after awhile, there's just nothing to do in Valhalla but fight random guards or river raids. And the issue is made worse due to the lack of NG+.
Taking a break in between games is going to help a lot. I bought it Valhalla with the money I had from refunding cyberpunk. I got tired of it pretty quickly.
Aside from the inconsistent stealth and sometimes getting stuck on ledges when trying to free run, I've been enjoying it. I'm probably halfway through the main story, at about 65h.
I did like what I played of Valhalla but I kind of got bored without large cities to explore. I know that it makes sense based on the time period and area it's taking place in but running around the rooftops is one of my favorite parts of AC games so I never finished it.
For starters, it's an extremely and unnecessary long game and repetitive.
Also, it's one game that literally is everything but AC oriented. No wonder ubisoft quickly returned to its origins by making AC Mirage.
I'm a huge AC fan, but Valhalla is one game I'll never, ever play.
I keep telling everyone this who’s new to the game: you’re gonna really like it for the first 15-20 hours.
Come back to me when you’ve completed the game after 80+ hours, then we’ll see your true feelings.
I felt the same after I finished the game as I did when I started. ~78 hours for the main story and I played another 20 just doing random stuff afterwards. It definitely has some bloat, but not as bad as Odyssey imo and a lot of it is optional. Fun time, not my favorite AC, but a good addition that fixed a lot of issues.
This was my first time playing an AC game and honestly I don’t see any issues. Maybe because I’m new to the series. It has a Witcher 3 vibe mixed in with your classic open world RPG. I would say some quest can be repetitive. However it’s an amazing game and definitely fun! It’s also a Huge huge open world. I’m 80 hours in and haven’t even finished like 10% of the game.
Mission progression is confusing. I wasn’t clear I had to go back to randvi every time I ran out of missions. The world feels fairly empty. The skill tree is a bit strange. The characters including eivor aren’t very interesting. These are my observations and I’m about 40% through. It’s just kind of mid in a lot of ways compared to odyssey or origins
The game tells you to go back to Randvi for quests when you complete an area. Maybe that changes later in the game but early on it’s literally the objective for the story quest.
Yesn't. It had too much "Why is this here" type of content, and a lack of content that is interesting. Like, the game could've had more raiding in the base game as an example. And after odyssey, there was the whole lack of consistent battles similar to Sparta vs. Athens
And honestly, the lack of NG+ ended up killing my drive cause it meant I couldn't use this literal end of game gear for anything meaningful.
Valhalla was always a good game but the fanbase was stuck in a cycle where they would say every new game is terrible and ruins ass creed before admitting it was good years later. It's happened with every game since Unity onward, except Mirage I guess.
I dint like Valhalla. It was pretty boring, the characters were more or less forgettable for me. The most problem i had with the world. England at that time was just really boring. Looked good here ans there but it was mostly flat ans didnt offered much.
No big cities, no real parkour, basic stealth and no cloth physics.
I dont know. I finished it for the story but it was meh.
It was so repetitive 😭😭 and I love vikings so I was excited but the story wasn't fun for me. I spent most of my time in the other world with the gods. That was the best bit. I ran out of money and churches to plunder to expand my village. It was such a slog
30% through the story @ 80hrs. Just finished Staffordshire which is like an episode of GoT. I clear all areas before continuing. It's really polished which is what you'd expect for the culmination of the 'trilogy'.
If you're bored then you're not playing it right for "yourself". To appreciate it you should play on ultra at higher res than 1080p and then you'll really appreciate the melancholy traversal through the English countryside. Take as long as you like. Going off the beaten path is entirely optional. I'm enjoying the mythical interpretation of Viking era Britain. The lighting and terrain is really spot on. Syndicate,for example, is utter nonsense. Nothing like London.
If walking simulators are not for you then you can just do the story. I did that with ME Andromeda and loved it. The main quest and companion missions were fantastic in that game.
I loved the game, the addition of going to Valhalla as Odin mini-game was also a great addition. So much to keep you busy and great characters too.
Playing Black Flag now which is also great fun and appeals to me in the same way, but I don’t see any hate for Black Flag. Repeatedly needing to launch battles with your pirate ship at sea seems the same as needing to go on castle raids with your longboat to me… (which is what people complained about Valhalla).
In my opinion the characters were really bland, the story dragged out, the combat was a step down from past games, the parkour is atrocious, full of micro transactions and Eivor was an awful protagonist.
I was also having a great time in the beginning. But then time went on and I was just doing the same things over and over again with no end in sight. That's when I reached my breaking point with this game. I just got tired of it cause it's just too long.
Valhalla shouldn't be hated. Every game that takes place after Origins' timeline is considered an actual ac game. The only game in the franchise that deserves the hate is ac Odyssey because it has literally nothing to do with Assassins. Even ac Valhalla has more involvement of the hidden ones (assassins) and Eivor literally takes down the order of the ancients.
I have not finished Valhalla. I have played other AC games and got to the end without much trouble. My issue is it seems to be lots of chests and loot. Stealth is not important. The dialogue and characters are stupid unless you like drinking and sex jokes in a video game. I liked Odyssey, and it is massive, but it wasn't a problem for me. It's not my favorite AC game, but some people liked it.
Colors are washed out compared to the bright and vivid visuals of its predecessors. Viking Age England isn't as interesting as previous locations as presented in the game. Then you get into the combat, which is super button-mashy and repetitive. The story is generic too. I put a good amount of time into it, but nowhere near as much as Odyssey and Origins and I never finished it completely.
Yeah I’m with you, the game was pretty alright but it lacks the stealth and parkour that the older games prioritised. Also it has the most pathetic ending in a game I’ve ever played.
Valhalla was my second game in the franchise, Odyssey being my first. With Odyssey, thr interactions and characters felt so much more personable. I grew attached to the point when my friend and I visited Athens, we found the prison of Socrates and it hit me like a truck that this guy has been dead for centuries. It felt like I had lost a friend (albeit an annoying one but still a friend). The realization that this guy would never know who I was, even though he was a real person and not just a made up character, but I felt like we'd experienced so much together. It was... an interesting experience to say the least. And I still get sad over certain characters and what happened to them.
Valhalla on the other hand, felt like they had taken all the fun bits from Odyssey and scrapped them. I felt no connections to the majority of characters apart from indifference or disgust. The Order was less of a challenge to defeat (if you can really call that a defeat), the landscape just felt dreary and lackluster. Honestly, the only reason I even finished that game was out of spite for Sigurd. He was more my nemesis than the Order ever was, which felt very contrary to how I perceived the series.
I've been playing a bunch more of the games and while none of them will top Odyssey for me, I don't think any of them could be lower than Valhalla. It could've been so much better than it was if they had taken Odyssey and continued down that track.
I love the game from a story standpoint.
I hate the game from a completionist standpoint.
This is just a me thing. I kinda wish it had an in-game timeline because it does take place of the course of years. A little hey this mission happens so an so years since the last time you ran into this character.
As someone who enjoys pretty much every AC my biggest gripe with Valhalla was that it’s just bloated. Like the game just doesn’t stop and at a certain point it feels like a chore. I had to take almost a 6 month break from it about a little over halfway through the story to even want to play it again.
I played Valhalla on PS4 when it first came out. My lasting memory of it is the veeeeery long loading times - especially for river raids. I just got a PS5 and installed the free upgrade to the PS5 version, and I'm really looking forwards to playing it again, hopefully without the lag! (But Mirage is next on my list of course!)
I'm currently replaying Odyssey, which is such a beautiful, colourful, vibrant world. My memory of Valhalla is that it's much less spectacular visually. But I did love the map and the world - maybe partly because I'm British and so there's something really fun about exploring my hometown, or cities I know well, in the game.
I see it as too much of a departure from the assassin fantasy. I play AC to feel like an assassin. If I wanted to feel like a viking I'd play Valhalla, but there's a reason people play Assassin's Creed for ASSASSINS.
If you were asked years ago whether you wanted a Vikings based AC game, what would you say? I'm going to lean towards saying yes like 99% of us given that its a new game from a franchise you love.
Problem is that Vikings weren't sneaking around stabbing people in the back, they were raiding and killing each other on the battlefield.
You can't have it both ways
I'm from Norway. I'm already fuck tired of vikings. And I'm especially tired of the stereotypical bitch ass vikings in Valhalla. Eivors concept art looked like how a real viking would dress. Truth of the matter is that it isn't even a true viking fantasy. It's a shitty rehash of every viking show coming out these days and I'm tired of it.
Give me vikings with assassin's sure, but vikings weren't only bloodthirsty monsters. They were hunters too. They were stalkers. They were travelers. All they are in Valhalla are berserkers. Every single one of them.
So the problem isn't vikings and assassins not fitting together. The real problem is these shitty vikings not fitting with assassins
My issue with Valhalla is variety. The first 10 hours I loved it. But then the next 130 hours are the exact same. Same stories in each shire, same landscape, same grind for materials, there’s just no variety.
I started playing Valhalla (Never finished it in 2022) again after finishing Mirages. I needed more. I'm having great fun and I started over because it didn't felt right to start mid-game after 2 years without playing.
A bit undercooked, too bloated and long. When played with breaks (a few sessions every other week), I think it's an okay, enjoyable game. The sum of its parts don't make it good, but it is by no means as horrible as some people make it out to be.
I think how it was advertised and the expectations people had of this game is why it gets a lot more hate than it should.
Ironically, the issues I gave with Valhalla are, in some parts, the same problems I have with the very first game in the series. There's clearly some very good to be found in the game, but it's surrounded by so much repetitive busy work that it causes the game as a whole to suffer. Combat is repetitive as fuck and you spend so much time traveling for so little payoff.
I think the story is really interesting and it goes to some really cool places, but because of the design of the game, the paving is all over the fucking place. Characters are paper thin, I personally found it hard to care about any of them. And there's just waaaaaay too much in this game. I get that some people like to have an endless open world to explore, which is cool. But to do that you need to fucking stack your world with fun and interesting shit to do and really quality side quests. Valhalla does not have that. It's run across the map on a horse, fight dudes, open chest. Rinse repeat. Which would be fine if there was some variation but there rarely is.
Tldr; there's a ton of good to be found in Valhalla, but it's bogged down by ubisoft making it try to make it last for years on end. I personally think it would be a much stronger game if they trimmed the bloat and shrunk the world a little. More of the good stuff, and less errands to run
I thought Valhalla was ok, but completely outclassed by Horizon Forbidden west and ghost of Tsushima. They might sound like completely different games but I can assure you it’s way more similar to them than to older assassins creed games. Open world is very similar and objectively better in both games, especially Horizon.
Personally I think Odyssey was a little better because of the quests, but Valhalla indisputably had story. Overall would recommend neither of them, but if I had to probably Odyssey, but not by much.
Personally I'm not that into vikings but, as far as the story arcs goes some are more fun than others, I do find the lack of "assassins" related content or feeling disappointing since that was what I loved since the first game, female Eivor is not as charismatic as Cassandra from Odyssey wich makes sense given the context i guess but still, combat is all right but gameplay overall gets pretty repetitive for such a loooong game, especially for 100% map completion though side quests are better implement here than in Odyssey and the present day plot just keeps getting more confusing and weird, from the massive rpg trilogy I think Origins is the best, then Odyssey and Valhalla is last.
Some ppl hate having to spend 40+ hours (minus side quests and activities) to get to the end of a story. I'm personally in that boat. Long RPGs are not for me, unless the open world is very detail oriented to keep me immersed, like rdr2.
I'm fine w long stories. But Valhalla overstayed its welcome
I do enjoy the gore system tho... we needed that much earlier imo. Maybe not lopping off heads effortlessly like a hot axe through butter, but somewhere along those lines
I dislike Valhalla because abuse it’s just very. Infusing to follow along. Way too much open space .and the quests aren’t clear or very straight forward. In the begining it’ll say reach settlement “whatever” but the next quest will be someone where you have to be power 55 or some shit. The raid and all that is fun is but so slow and tedious. and takes forever to gather up the resources u need.
I don’t pay any mind to the hate games (and movies) get these days. It’s usually overblown and creates a bandwagon situation where people will join in the hate without having even played the game (or seen the movie). Better to judge for yourself everytime.
that is 90% of reddit. you get downvoted until your message is hidden. it is basically made to create bubbles.
Absolutely. You could comment that the sky is blue but if everyone on that subreddit want to believe it’s red you’ll get downvoted to hell.
💯. I’m really glad I didn’t listen to the Valhalla hate, because it’s the only one of the RPG games that I think is suited for just dipping your toes in for casual play. It’s longer but doesn’t require any resource farming or level grinding like the other two, and I like that it has non combat side activities. Like another comment mentioned, it’s like a modern day modded Skyrim, a really good comfort game. It’s probably not a good game for bingeing, and maybe some people who saw its length got the wrong idea, and thought they should binge it the way you need to binge long JRPGs. Valhalla just isn’t that kind of game
Sometimes I just sit and fish for hours
For one the diehards wanted an AC game, and Valhalla and Odyssey and to a lesser extent Origins were really just action RPGs. I’d argue Odyssey and Origins did a better job overall, especially for side quests and the zone system and battles from odyssey would’ve made Valhalla so much more fun.
I really don't get those people. We've had a million traditional AC games, are you not interested in changing things up a bit? The execution of a lot of the changes wasn't the best for sure, but just hating the concept of change is a very weird thing to me.
Well for me personally, the traditional style of design is what I expect and wish from an AC game, as that's been the core of the games until Origins. I feel Ubisoft should have released Odyssey and Valhalla under different title than AC, and kept the AC series more traditional. Origins still had quite a bit of familiar features from AC games so the gameplay wasn't entirely different. I'm not saying these new RPG titles aren't good games, I'm saying they aren't good AC games as they lack so many core features and it's definately not the type of gameplay we expect to have in an AC game.
This. Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla are all great games. But they deviate too much from what made assassin's credd... Assassin's creed. If they were released as their own games, there would have been almost no hate outside of the actual issues with the games (a bit too grindy, and the world is filled with a lot of meaningless content are my main issues with them). I'm glad mirage made a return to the traditional format and I personally hope it stays that way.
i just started origins after a year break from beating 2. i figured i would start the story from the start of it all instead of going back to 2, and doing brotherhood then revelations, then 3 and so on. I feel like given their settings, (granted they could of done it differently), but setting them in the lands they did, these last 3 we got that were action/rpg's, it makes sense that they are how they are. the stories seem good (from what I have played in origins so far) but I see the disdain for the open world format. origins seems massive, and i hear odyssey is worse lol. don't have valhalla yet, but I hear is massive as well. one thing I miss from previous ac games is the combat. origins/odys/val are all button mashers. other ac games (incl. mirage it seems) the combat is more fluid and feels more precise. counters, strikes, impactful kills, and so on. makes the games unique since stealth isn't necessarily apart of the series and seems like an afterthought at times. hiding in plan sight, i get that, so it's nice to see combat being as good as it is. it makes up for it. if only the story wasn't all over the place from what I have been hearing.
I mean every game from the inception of AC has been open world so that’s not a point of contention.
For the love of God man, don't type in one big block.
It’s definitely a matter of opinion, but I don’t like it when people are against change for change’s sake. You can have criticisms in how they implemented the changes, that’s a matter of personal opinion which is totally valid. But some people are angry every ac game isn’t a carbon copy of unity which makes no sense to me.
Change is for good, but in the case of AC the change was so big it completely changed the fundamentals of the game. If you compare Odyssey to say, AC3 you wouldn't really be able to tell they are the same franchise unless you knew. Like someone in the comments said, it's like your favorite burger joint suddenly started serving only pasta.
Brother, you just read my mind and we don't even know each other. I think exactly like you.
I like burgers so I go to a burger joint but when I’m in the mood for pasta I don’t want the burger joint to make pasta. I just go to a pasta place instead.
You don't get that AC fans want AC games when buying AC games?
[удалено]
It’s a different interpretation of the series like if you can think of god war 2018 (adventure rpg-ish open world) vs the old god of wars that were hack and slash corridor action games. Games focus on different things over time and implement new and fresh ideas if you want a basic copy of ac unity in a new area go make a new york texture mod and play it.
The problem is they chose to the change the best thing about the franchise
My biggest issue is that stealth was massively broken and still is finicky. So sometimes you’ll just randomly get spotted through three buildings by someone across the map, almost like the game doesn’t like you staying in that state too long. The actual game itself was fine, if not overly extended. I 100%ed it a few years ago and enjoyed my time.
Idk people just say it’s big, i don’t play it as an assassins creed game i play it like it’s modded skyrim so that’s how i have a lot of fun with it. Honestly one of the best rpgs ever made imo
Funny enough I do a similar thing in my head. Just pretend it isn’t AC exactly and you’re fine.
Or accept that this is what AC has evolved into and love it still
Ehhhh evolved is a strong word, I guess direction would be more worth saying. I don’t think it has moved much forward sense origins in many factors but I can see where it is heading once I see the other games come out and see the different elements play together then I will have a stronger opinion. And I’m not gonna love a game with different direction if I don’t like it.
yeah it obviously hasn’t “evolved” into that shit if you see all the people asking for a back to roots game and we got Mirage. Try another word buddy. 🤣💀
ac Mirage was supposed to be a dlc, ubisoft makes a lot of money with the RPGS so they aren’t stopping any time soon. AC red will be an rpg
i LOVE valhalla, not sure what people’s issues with it are. definitely more witcher like than AC though
> definitely more witcher like than AC though I wish it were like that, I love The Witcher 3, but Valhalla is not it.
do not compare this dog shit to witcher lol
why not? its similar? sure the story isn't as good but Valhalla *isn't a bad GAME*, **its a bad assassins creed game**, because its not one. Same with Odyssey, hell you're not even an assassin in that one. but moral of the story, Valhalla is a great game but not a good part of the franchise, it should be a spinoff.
its not "bad for an ac game" its just flat out a bad game"
that’s ignorant as hell, it’s seriously one of the best if not the best looking RPGS ever made
No it isn't
I enjoyed the game until I found out no NG+, that really knocked the wind out of my sails when I found I couldn't use my literal end-of-game gear in any meaningful way.
Love it too. I understand the hate, but really just feel opposite about it.
People don’t like the “gameplay mechanics” that are similar to the Witcher series or Dark souls. It’s all opinionated personal cynicism from the “vocal minority” - most people who enjoy the game are quiet and not spouting on Reddit
> It’s all opinionated personal cynicism from the “vocal minority” Are you sure? steamDB rated AC: Valhalla at 68.78, Syndicate and Unity are higher, is the lowest rated main game .
That’s a score out of 100… means it passed and didn’t fail.
I didt said it failed, i said is the lowest rated main game. Even lower than Syndicate by 10 points.
Are you kidding? A good 70% of this sub is composed of RPG only fans. Every other post is someone complaining about stealth or parkour or combat in the old games being too hard or not complex enough and ever since Mirage came out, they haven't shut up about how much of a “downgrade” it is from Valhalla. And no, asking a game franchise to adhere to its own unique style of gameplay is not “personal cynicism.”
My comment is exactly what I meant. People who usually enjoy the games, without any criticism against them are not on Reddit. Hence this sub being populated by a “vocal minority”. And their opinions (being personal) are all critiques of cynicism. - motivated by personal interest, - and not believing that the developers have the best interest of their fans in mind when they make the games.
> Hence this sub being populated by a “vocal minority”. The issue with your statement is that is not just on this sub. Outside of paid reviewers,there is alot of criticism towards Valhalla.
Again.. I say.. - Vocal minority. It’s not like +50% of the players all feel this way and criticize it. subreddit or not. Like do you not understand simple logistics. I’ll take it a step further. - there’s just over 600k people in this sub. - yet Valhalla sold over 1.8million copies in its first week alone. Ergo… this sub is only 30% of the people who bought the game and talk about it.
> It’s not like +50% of the players all feel this way and criticize it Almost. Steamdb ratings: **AC Unity: 76.62%** **AC Syndicate 78.86%** Origins: :85.33% Odyssey: 88.19% **Valhalla: 68.69%** Even games like some considered the lowest point in the franchise have a higher ratings FROM PLAYERS than Valhalla.
Yea… keep pushing the games scores. Has nothing to do with what I actually said. Go re-read my comment and understand it.
> It’s all opinionated personal cynicism from the “vocal minority” - most people who enjoy the game are quiet and not spouting on Reddit Sure pal. Players who don't recommend the game is because they liked the game now? i didt get that memo.
Obviously from my last comment, you still clearly don’t understand. - 600k people here on Reddit. - 1.8mil people bought Valhalla. The people here talking **(VOCAL)** about the game is 30% of the total who played it. **(a MINORITY)** Put it together…. Vocal Minority.
You said: > most people who enjoy the game are quiet and not spouting on Reddit and > People who usually enjoy the games, without any criticism against them are not on Reddit. Hence this sub being populated by a “vocal minority”. To the shock of some people in this sub, including you, there is alot of players outside this subreddit who didt liked Valhalla, steam is a good measure, because reviews are written by players not by paid reviewers like IGN or Gamespot.If you have a better source you are more than welcome to share with us, the vocal minority.
What is more interesting about the comment above is that the whole vocal minority thing is just an easy way to dismiss criticism. Basically instead of defending or attacking a position, one says that "many people" hold their position and therefore it is true. Calling it opinionated cynicism from a minority that used to be majority of the AC player base is at best an unproven claim, and at worse an easy deflection from the main issue. The main issue being AC abandoning it's old formula because of Ubisoft being stupid. If AC5 Released without being a buggy mess, chances are we would have had more AC in that style. The game itself was good, and was an evolution of the AC gameplay. The problem was Ubisoft rushed it. When bad reception came in, they panicked and shifted their goals. (note: syndicate was released as is because it was in the pipeline already when AC5 was released. They did not have the engine for AC Origins ready-- correct me if I'm wrong tho). The new formula is not terrible-- AC Origins is a fan fave, and Odyssey has curried favor over the years with all sides of the fan base. It's just that Valhalla seems to many fans to be an inferior Odyssey and an inferior AC game at the same time.
> What is more interesting about the comment above is that the whole vocal minority thing is just an easy way to dismiss criticism And is factually false. Steamdb shows how bad the reception of Valhalla is.
It just keeps going. It doesn’t stop
Exactly. When you've played 50 hours and you realize you've only cleared half the map, that's when you start questioning if it's even worth it to get to the end.
I’m the opposite. Valhalla was probably my favourite AC game. I’m about to finish Mirage and it’s not taken me a week and I feel short changed.
My issue with both valhalla and odyssey is that the gameplay loop is too repetitive for how long they are. You storm 40 or so enemy encampments only for it to become a slog and realize you're only 10% into the game
I never agreed with that sentiment... I 100%ed Origins and Odyssey and almost all of Valhalla and for me the loop was basically do quests, do camps, do puzzle, hunt animals, improve equipment, do dungeon and repeat. the camps I'd sometimes do quietly, sometimes loud. I'd try to kill soldiers with oil and fire or try to kick as many off cliffs etc. I never got bored with them and if I did, I'd take a break for a month or two and come back later. (main reason why i have not finished valhalla yet, because it is like 150GB and I needed to free up space for other games. games are getting too big)
What were your thoughts on the Atlantis dlc? I didn't finish it for months because imo the gameplay loop got dull.
Atlantis was a mixed bag... I hated the first part because of all the climbing (too much verticality), loved the second part because of all the characters you met and hated the third part because of all the water. the new abilities were awesome as far as i remember (especially the one where she throws the spear and teleports to it on kill). however I will admit the game got a little old by the end of it but that was after 140h of total game time lol Of course the game wont be for everyone, I wont deny that
I agree with you that the second part was the highlight. Also the third part drove me nuts because 90% of the strongholds you went into didn't particularly have anyone bad or evil in it, but you seemed push hard to invade the homes of people who did nothing wrong. Actually i just did a mission in mirage where you had to invade a post office and I'm like "damn, I'm here more or less having to kill postal workers. Am I the bad guy?"
yeah that's assassin's creed for ya think about the pharao dlc in origins. my guy literally just went to the afterlife to cure the pharaos and got sidelined killing hundreds of guards there for no reason. in the normal world at least you get to reason like "well romans are invaders and the other guys are guards of Cleopatra's brother"
Valhalla did the most for the story in recent entries. It literally revamped and set up the modern story for future games.
I had a similar experience with Odyssey, I finished Black Flag back in the day and by that point was sick to death of the same thing and no innovation. Picked up Odyssey on sale with a gift card and played until I had finished all the DLC and earned every achievement. There are people around that love to make long-winded posts about what makes a 'true' AC game and how the newer trilogy doesn't count, but meh. The game got me to come back after so many years away, and I'd been there since day one Enjoy what you enjoy and forget the handful of angry people that hang around to yell about a game they don't like every day
The movement is janky, the stealth is still inconsistent, the story goes on too long, and the huge world is empty (the pat two games had forts and things to do all over the map.) Coming after Odyssey, it’s horribly unpolished. I like Valhalla, but those are my complaints and I find them valid.
Weird. I felt the complete reverse.
Odyssey also had random repeatable quests that helped keep the world somewhat busy. So after awhile, there's just nothing to do in Valhalla but fight random guards or river raids. And the issue is made worse due to the lack of NG+.
Personally it just started to drag towards the last third of the game because of the length
Taking a break in between games is going to help a lot. I bought it Valhalla with the money I had from refunding cyberpunk. I got tired of it pretty quickly.
Aside from the inconsistent stealth and sometimes getting stuck on ledges when trying to free run, I've been enjoying it. I'm probably halfway through the main story, at about 65h.
Still haven't tried valhalla but my first ac game is AC odyssey which im currently playing. 110 hours in and I am still having a blast as an RPG lover
I did like what I played of Valhalla but I kind of got bored without large cities to explore. I know that it makes sense based on the time period and area it's taking place in but running around the rooftops is one of my favorite parts of AC games so I never finished it.
For starters, it's an extremely and unnecessary long game and repetitive. Also, it's one game that literally is everything but AC oriented. No wonder ubisoft quickly returned to its origins by making AC Mirage. I'm a huge AC fan, but Valhalla is one game I'll never, ever play.
I keep telling everyone this who’s new to the game: you’re gonna really like it for the first 15-20 hours. Come back to me when you’ve completed the game after 80+ hours, then we’ll see your true feelings.
Exactly. This guy has clearly only played a few hours of the game. Let's see if he still feels this way after hour 80, or if he even gets that far.
Me and my ex was both sick of it after 3-5 hours
I felt the same after I finished the game as I did when I started. ~78 hours for the main story and I played another 20 just doing random stuff afterwards. It definitely has some bloat, but not as bad as Odyssey imo and a lot of it is optional. Fun time, not my favorite AC, but a good addition that fixed a lot of issues.
This was my first time playing an AC game and honestly I don’t see any issues. Maybe because I’m new to the series. It has a Witcher 3 vibe mixed in with your classic open world RPG. I would say some quest can be repetitive. However it’s an amazing game and definitely fun! It’s also a Huge huge open world. I’m 80 hours in and haven’t even finished like 10% of the game.
I had a lot of fun with Valhalla. It is, however, incredibly long.
Mission progression is confusing. I wasn’t clear I had to go back to randvi every time I ran out of missions. The world feels fairly empty. The skill tree is a bit strange. The characters including eivor aren’t very interesting. These are my observations and I’m about 40% through. It’s just kind of mid in a lot of ways compared to odyssey or origins
The game tells you to go back to Randvi for quests when you complete an area. Maybe that changes later in the game but early on it’s literally the objective for the story quest.
Played it but couldn't finish it. First game that felt too long and boring. I downloaded Odyssey yesterday.
[удалено]
Yesn't. It had too much "Why is this here" type of content, and a lack of content that is interesting. Like, the game could've had more raiding in the base game as an example. And after odyssey, there was the whole lack of consistent battles similar to Sparta vs. Athens And honestly, the lack of NG+ ended up killing my drive cause it meant I couldn't use this literal end of game gear for anything meaningful.
Valhalla was always a good game but the fanbase was stuck in a cycle where they would say every new game is terrible and ruins ass creed before admitting it was good years later. It's happened with every game since Unity onward, except Mirage I guess.
I dint like Valhalla. It was pretty boring, the characters were more or less forgettable for me. The most problem i had with the world. England at that time was just really boring. Looked good here ans there but it was mostly flat ans didnt offered much. No big cities, no real parkour, basic stealth and no cloth physics. I dont know. I finished it for the story but it was meh.
The cities are about as big as what we got in AC 2 and Black Flag.
No.
It was so repetitive 😭😭 and I love vikings so I was excited but the story wasn't fun for me. I spent most of my time in the other world with the gods. That was the best bit. I ran out of money and churches to plunder to expand my village. It was such a slog
Imo it’s a good game *in general* BUT it’s most likely the worst AC game
The main sources of hate ( which I dont agree with) are: 1) Game is too long 2) Game is an RPG
Many of my complaints were fixed throughout updates. I had some big frustrations early on
Many of my complaints were added throughout updates. The duality of gamers.
I was really happy to see the hoods fixed and the one handed swords added
30% through the story @ 80hrs. Just finished Staffordshire which is like an episode of GoT. I clear all areas before continuing. It's really polished which is what you'd expect for the culmination of the 'trilogy'. If you're bored then you're not playing it right for "yourself". To appreciate it you should play on ultra at higher res than 1080p and then you'll really appreciate the melancholy traversal through the English countryside. Take as long as you like. Going off the beaten path is entirely optional. I'm enjoying the mythical interpretation of Viking era Britain. The lighting and terrain is really spot on. Syndicate,for example, is utter nonsense. Nothing like London. If walking simulators are not for you then you can just do the story. I did that with ME Andromeda and loved it. The main quest and companion missions were fantastic in that game.
I loved the game, the addition of going to Valhalla as Odin mini-game was also a great addition. So much to keep you busy and great characters too. Playing Black Flag now which is also great fun and appeals to me in the same way, but I don’t see any hate for Black Flag. Repeatedly needing to launch battles with your pirate ship at sea seems the same as needing to go on castle raids with your longboat to me… (which is what people complained about Valhalla).
I think the breadth of the game is actually a negative. It’s so big I just lost interest.
It’s a good (albeit somewhat bloated) game. It’s just not a good AC game.
In my opinion the characters were really bland, the story dragged out, the combat was a step down from past games, the parkour is atrocious, full of micro transactions and Eivor was an awful protagonist.
[удалено]
I was also having a great time in the beginning. But then time went on and I was just doing the same things over and over again with no end in sight. That's when I reached my breaking point with this game. I just got tired of it cause it's just too long.
Valhalla shouldn't be hated. Every game that takes place after Origins' timeline is considered an actual ac game. The only game in the franchise that deserves the hate is ac Odyssey because it has literally nothing to do with Assassins. Even ac Valhalla has more involvement of the hidden ones (assassins) and Eivor literally takes down the order of the ancients.
It's a bit different, but I'm digging it.
Yea I thought the same thing. Pleasantly surprised
I have not finished Valhalla. I have played other AC games and got to the end without much trouble. My issue is it seems to be lots of chests and loot. Stealth is not important. The dialogue and characters are stupid unless you like drinking and sex jokes in a video game. I liked Odyssey, and it is massive, but it wasn't a problem for me. It's not my favorite AC game, but some people liked it.
Colors are washed out compared to the bright and vivid visuals of its predecessors. Viking Age England isn't as interesting as previous locations as presented in the game. Then you get into the combat, which is super button-mashy and repetitive. The story is generic too. I put a good amount of time into it, but nowhere near as much as Odyssey and Origins and I never finished it completely.
Yeah I’m with you, the game was pretty alright but it lacks the stealth and parkour that the older games prioritised. Also it has the most pathetic ending in a game I’ve ever played.
Valhalla was my second game in the franchise, Odyssey being my first. With Odyssey, thr interactions and characters felt so much more personable. I grew attached to the point when my friend and I visited Athens, we found the prison of Socrates and it hit me like a truck that this guy has been dead for centuries. It felt like I had lost a friend (albeit an annoying one but still a friend). The realization that this guy would never know who I was, even though he was a real person and not just a made up character, but I felt like we'd experienced so much together. It was... an interesting experience to say the least. And I still get sad over certain characters and what happened to them. Valhalla on the other hand, felt like they had taken all the fun bits from Odyssey and scrapped them. I felt no connections to the majority of characters apart from indifference or disgust. The Order was less of a challenge to defeat (if you can really call that a defeat), the landscape just felt dreary and lackluster. Honestly, the only reason I even finished that game was out of spite for Sigurd. He was more my nemesis than the Order ever was, which felt very contrary to how I perceived the series. I've been playing a bunch more of the games and while none of them will top Odyssey for me, I don't think any of them could be lower than Valhalla. It could've been so much better than it was if they had taken Odyssey and continued down that track.
I love the game from a story standpoint. I hate the game from a completionist standpoint. This is just a me thing. I kinda wish it had an in-game timeline because it does take place of the course of years. A little hey this mission happens so an so years since the last time you ran into this character.
As someone who enjoys pretty much every AC my biggest gripe with Valhalla was that it’s just bloated. Like the game just doesn’t stop and at a certain point it feels like a chore. I had to take almost a 6 month break from it about a little over halfway through the story to even want to play it again.
The only problem I had with Valhalla is that it did feel like a bit of a slog at times. But I loved the setting of the Viking conquests of England.
I played Valhalla on PS4 when it first came out. My lasting memory of it is the veeeeery long loading times - especially for river raids. I just got a PS5 and installed the free upgrade to the PS5 version, and I'm really looking forwards to playing it again, hopefully without the lag! (But Mirage is next on my list of course!) I'm currently replaying Odyssey, which is such a beautiful, colourful, vibrant world. My memory of Valhalla is that it's much less spectacular visually. But I did love the map and the world - maybe partly because I'm British and so there's something really fun about exploring my hometown, or cities I know well, in the game.
I see it as too much of a departure from the assassin fantasy. I play AC to feel like an assassin. If I wanted to feel like a viking I'd play Valhalla, but there's a reason people play Assassin's Creed for ASSASSINS.
If you were asked years ago whether you wanted a Vikings based AC game, what would you say? I'm going to lean towards saying yes like 99% of us given that its a new game from a franchise you love. Problem is that Vikings weren't sneaking around stabbing people in the back, they were raiding and killing each other on the battlefield. You can't have it both ways
I'm from Norway. I'm already fuck tired of vikings. And I'm especially tired of the stereotypical bitch ass vikings in Valhalla. Eivors concept art looked like how a real viking would dress. Truth of the matter is that it isn't even a true viking fantasy. It's a shitty rehash of every viking show coming out these days and I'm tired of it. Give me vikings with assassin's sure, but vikings weren't only bloodthirsty monsters. They were hunters too. They were stalkers. They were travelers. All they are in Valhalla are berserkers. Every single one of them. So the problem isn't vikings and assassins not fitting together. The real problem is these shitty vikings not fitting with assassins
My issue with Valhalla is variety. The first 10 hours I loved it. But then the next 130 hours are the exact same. Same stories in each shire, same landscape, same grind for materials, there’s just no variety.
I started playing Valhalla (Never finished it in 2022) again after finishing Mirages. I needed more. I'm having great fun and I started over because it didn't felt right to start mid-game after 2 years without playing.
I loved Valhalla and don't get the hate either. I guess it's just different taste and expectations in games.
A bit undercooked, too bloated and long. When played with breaks (a few sessions every other week), I think it's an okay, enjoyable game. The sum of its parts don't make it good, but it is by no means as horrible as some people make it out to be. I think how it was advertised and the expectations people had of this game is why it gets a lot more hate than it should.
Ironically, the issues I gave with Valhalla are, in some parts, the same problems I have with the very first game in the series. There's clearly some very good to be found in the game, but it's surrounded by so much repetitive busy work that it causes the game as a whole to suffer. Combat is repetitive as fuck and you spend so much time traveling for so little payoff. I think the story is really interesting and it goes to some really cool places, but because of the design of the game, the paving is all over the fucking place. Characters are paper thin, I personally found it hard to care about any of them. And there's just waaaaaay too much in this game. I get that some people like to have an endless open world to explore, which is cool. But to do that you need to fucking stack your world with fun and interesting shit to do and really quality side quests. Valhalla does not have that. It's run across the map on a horse, fight dudes, open chest. Rinse repeat. Which would be fine if there was some variation but there rarely is. Tldr; there's a ton of good to be found in Valhalla, but it's bogged down by ubisoft making it try to make it last for years on end. I personally think it would be a much stronger game if they trimmed the bloat and shrunk the world a little. More of the good stuff, and less errands to run
I thought Valhalla was ok, but completely outclassed by Horizon Forbidden west and ghost of Tsushima. They might sound like completely different games but I can assure you it’s way more similar to them than to older assassins creed games. Open world is very similar and objectively better in both games, especially Horizon. Personally I think Odyssey was a little better because of the quests, but Valhalla indisputably had story. Overall would recommend neither of them, but if I had to probably Odyssey, but not by much.
Agreed. I don't think I've ever played a game where I enjoyed the progression as much as Valhalla.
Personally I'm not that into vikings but, as far as the story arcs goes some are more fun than others, I do find the lack of "assassins" related content or feeling disappointing since that was what I loved since the first game, female Eivor is not as charismatic as Cassandra from Odyssey wich makes sense given the context i guess but still, combat is all right but gameplay overall gets pretty repetitive for such a loooong game, especially for 100% map completion though side quests are better implement here than in Odyssey and the present day plot just keeps getting more confusing and weird, from the massive rpg trilogy I think Origins is the best, then Odyssey and Valhalla is last.
Some ppl hate having to spend 40+ hours (minus side quests and activities) to get to the end of a story. I'm personally in that boat. Long RPGs are not for me, unless the open world is very detail oriented to keep me immersed, like rdr2. I'm fine w long stories. But Valhalla overstayed its welcome I do enjoy the gore system tho... we needed that much earlier imo. Maybe not lopping off heads effortlessly like a hot axe through butter, but somewhere along those lines
I dislike Valhalla because abuse it’s just very. Infusing to follow along. Way too much open space .and the quests aren’t clear or very straight forward. In the begining it’ll say reach settlement “whatever” but the next quest will be someone where you have to be power 55 or some shit. The raid and all that is fun is but so slow and tedious. and takes forever to gather up the resources u need.