victrix posted:

I dropped the series after that because I thought it needed a big rethink

So I came back for Origins and was quite happy with that and Odyssey

... now they're going back to the formula I lost interest in

(Valhalla has problems too, we're at another "time for a refresh" point in the series)

Vandar posted:

I know it's been said a million times over but Valhalla was so loving disappointing compared to Origins and especially Odyssey.

There's a part of me that wants to give it a second chance but then I think about what an absolute slog that playing it was and I just...uuugh.

exquisite tea posted:

Valhalla was irritating because it had all the scope problems of Odyssey but stripped away the character progression and fun choice/consequence systems that make these 100-hour behemoth RPGs worth playing.

exquisite tea posted:

Valhalla was irritating because it had all the scope problems of Odyssey but stripped away the character progression and fun choice/consequence systems that make these 100-hour behemoth RPGs worth playing. Odyssey wasn't exactly Dragon Age in terms of how much you could affect the story but there were a lot of fun interactions and outcomes, it got the job done. Bioware has gone nowhere since 2018, BG3 just came out and showed everyone that people loving love these kinds of games, yet Ubisoft is "going back to the roots" aka making everything more boringer once more.

Dr Kool-AIDS posted:

Origins and Odyssey were both easy GOTY contenders for me, at least one being my actual GOTY at the time, but I didn't even finish Valhalla or think it was a good game. More of the same but worse is basically how I view it, where every bit of fatigue that might have accumulated from playing two huge (amazing) similar games combined with this one just not being up to snuff to make it feel like an unfun slog. Mirage being a smaller, more focused experience sounds interesting (even Origins and Odyssey were a little too big, as much as I loved them), but going back to stealth-heavy gameplay raises a red flag for me if that means more tedious instant fail tailing missions, so it's a wait and see game for me.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

long shaggy Dag story

ilitarist posted:

Alchenar posted:

I don't actually demand much of a combat system but Valhalla's was such a tangible step backwards from Odyssey and Origins that demands nothing of the player.

Wolfsheim posted:

*bursts into the thread from a nearby haypile, seemingly having been there the whole time*

Plot tastes are whatever but the combat/movement in Valhalla is almost objectively better than Odyssey, having played them both back to back within the same year. Shields, dual wielding, social stealth, the stomp, bows not being dogshit, less severe level gating, movement having a little weight, all good additions. High-level combat in Valhalla is an array of different options and styles, high-level combat in Odyssey is doing the Mordor teleport and the assassin strike that does 20,000% more damage than every other move or plinking away slowly at every enemy you meet.

They both out stay their welcome (and the DLC makes this even worse, I'd skip all of it) but at least when I wanted to mix it up in Valhalla I could mess around with dual flails or giant shield+tiny knife or something.

Wolfsheim posted:

*bursts into the thread from a nearby haypile, seemingly having been there the whole time*

Plot tastes are whatever but the combat/movement in Valhalla is almost objectively better than Odyssey, having played them both back to back within the same year. Shields, dual wielding, social stealth, the stomp, bows not being dogshit, less severe level gating, movement having a little weight, all good additions. High-level combat in Valhalla is an array of different options and styles, high-level combat in Odyssey is doing the Mordor teleport and the assassin strike that does 20,000% more damage than every other move or plinking away slowly at every enemy you meet.

They both out stay their welcome (and the DLC makes this even worse, I'd skip all of it) but at least when I wanted to mix it up in Valhalla I could mess around with dual flails or giant shield+tiny knife or something.

Saxophone posted:

If you have me Odyssey and Valhalla and told me nothing else, I would assume Valhalla came out first and Odyssey was just polishing up on that iteration.

Like Vikings were fine and combat felt alright, but in Odyssey I played Kasandra and played it as Lesbian Death Boat and sailed around the map and conquered things and seduced ladies and kicked men off of high things. It has a lot of charm and character that Valhalla just lacked.

Kuiperdolin posted:

Those critics are mostly the same who criticized Unity and praised the poorly designed rpg trilogy so their opinion is not worth much.

ilitarist posted:

So you mean those are critics who say the right things.

Wonder if this game is going to be like Syndicate or Rogue a game no one remembers in a few years. Baghdad is a good idea for a setting, but I understand from a story point it is a filler it looks like, and gameplay-wise all they've promised is going back to the routes without actually bringing back the precise parkour controls of early AC games.

exquisite tea posted:

I think AC games are kind of buoyed by their protagonists and Basim is the most "who asked for this" lead character yet.

Jimbot posted:

It's kind of weird when I hear people in the enthusiast press go on "Basim was the most interesting character!" and I'm like, uh, what? He was alright in Valhalla but his entire arc gets wrapped up and the last thing he ever says is an almost villainous way of saying he's going to steal all of Eivor's experiences and skills through the animus bleed effect while wearing a silly three wolf shirt.

I think I'll rent the game from Gamefly to see what a modern "back to basics" AC game looks like these days but I really don't care about how Basim became an assassin. He was never that interesting to me.

Kuiperdolin posted:

Those critics are mostly the same who criticized Unity and praised the poorly designed rpg trilogy so their opinion is not worth much.

Alchenar posted:

Skillup both liked Origins and Odyssey, didn't like Valhalla, and did not like this. I do rate his opinion on this sort of game but not good.

It feels like at best this is just very overpriced for what you get.

Jimbot posted:

It's kind of weird when I hear people in the enthusiast press go on "Basim was the most interesting character!" and I'm like, uh, what? He was alright in Valhalla but his entire arc gets wrapped up and the last thing he ever says is an almost villainous way of saying he's going to steal all of Eivor's experiences and skills through the animus bleed effect while wearing a silly three wolf shirt.

I think I'll rent the game from Gamefly to see what a modern "back to basics" AC game looks like these days but I really don't care about how Basim became an assassin. He was never that interesting to me.

ilitarist posted:

Basim would be an interesting character if you'd continue his story. He (seemingly) has fused with a ghost in his head, he has some sort of plan, he is already an assassin with personal experience and him getting in Animus could have something spicy. I remember how he talked about his homeland in Valhalla and it immediately made me wonder why didn't they make a game about that and instead made it about huts.

"Back to basics" is also an extremely toothless sell. Do you remember a game in a series that did "back to basics" and turned out well? Origins snatched the ideas from other genres but this was at least somewhat innovative. Going back to the design that was a subject of endless jokes 10 years ago sounds mad. I'm all for smaller more focused game but I honestly hope that back to basics is just marketing talk and there's at least something alive and passionate about this game.

Arivia posted:

Doom 2016 was back to basics and was extremely good and fun.