|
Someone commented earlier that it seemed like the forts were meant to be more inaccessible because lots of them have (useless) tunnel entrances. I think that might have been a reasonable solution. I don't mind that some rockface or a random bit of a city can be scaled but it would help make the harder areas hard if you had to plan your route a bit more.
Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jan 18, 2024 |
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Very true, I remember playing Origins/Odyssey and thinking that maybe at some point they wanted to make walls uscalable, or maybe add something like stamina. Well probably not stamina because these games have very big monuments you must scale that don't have any places to rest (like pyramids). It's also strange that this design is still in Odyssey. I know Odyssey was in development concurrently with Origins for a long time, but you'd think they could do something about it. Right now these entrances to forts feel like traps cause they put you in the middle of a crowd of enemies, and scaling the walls you can usually pick up lone watchmen and then attack the rest of the enemies from high above.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 14:47
|
|
|
Possibly the sealed forts were dumped late, because they weren't fun, or some interconnectedness caused weird problems, and there was no plan B. So the entrances are left there because why not. Or, they figured people would use them because it's cooler that way (I did) and put them in for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 15:30
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Very true, I remember playing Origins/Odyssey and thinking that maybe at some point they wanted to make walls uscalable, or maybe add something like stamina. Well probably not stamina because these games have very big monuments you must scale that don't have any places to rest (like pyramids). It's also strange that this design is still in Odyssey. I know Odyssey was in development concurrently with Origins for a long time, but you'd think they could do something about it. Right now these entrances to forts feel like traps cause they put you in the middle of a crowd of enemies, and scaling the walls you can usually pick up lone watchmen and then attack the rest of the enemies from high above. i suspect they wanted to do stamina but then saw how people reacted with the zelda games and decided against it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
With the sheer number of forts in the game, it would have been a nightmare to clear them all. The wooden palisades are unscalable and I wonder if that’s leftover from the earlier design. It’s harder to get into these camps then it is into the large forts!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i suspect they wanted to do stamina but then saw how people reacted with the zelda games and decided against it. People reacted poorly to that? The climbing system in BOTW was brilliant! It would be silly in an AssCreed game but the open-ended puzzling through how to get up a cliff face or structure was so cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
When I show games like this to my dad, his main reaction is about the main character being a "monkey man" because of how effortlessly he scales everything Edit: I wonder if there are any sickos who don't name the wolf "Dwolfg" Eivor always sounds so happy when he runs into Dwolfg and goes "Dwolfg! So glad to see you!" Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jan 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
i dont know if this is true in the other games but a fun fact about forts in Odyssey: if you kill everyone except one soldier, as long as you are undetected, that soldier will spend their entire time walking around, gathering every single corpse, and throwing them into a pit. there's a black hole pit in every fort, usually kind of hidden, but you can find them by following soldiers doing this duty. once this is done the fort will be re-garrisoned. i thought it was a cool thing to do instead of just despawning the bodies
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 23:58
|
|
|
In Origins and Odyssey every location has a body storage. In theory you can drop bodies to manipulate people into going to the morgue with a body alone. It's rarely efficient though, but it's immersive, same as day/night shifts that are easier to notice. All this is absent from Valhalla and Mirage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
Back to WD I've just reached the point where the game drops the pretence and straight up transitions into 'for all intents and purposes this is a modern day AC game, please assassinate the bad guys'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Finished Mirage. It's the most competently made AC game in many regards. The writing is fine, which you don't often see in these games. It's limited in scope which feels good for what it's doing. But it's very pointless and mediocre. If you played Valhalla you know exactly what happens in this game. If you didn't I'm not sure if you understand what was the ending about. But meta-story is not important in these games for me, it's all a backdrop for a historical setting. And while the city is nice and all for some reason I didn't care about it at all. First, most of the stories are extremely generic which is often a sin of these games. Like in AC3 one of the earliest main story missions is getting some goods from bandits, and it feels like the biggest possible mistake you can make with writing for these games. You have an opportunity to write for an AAA open-world game in a setting that will probably won't have another game like this for decades, and you get with "rats in a cellar" level of generic stories. Mirage is often like that: competently written characters discuss stories about rebels and dig sites and generals that might be copied word-for-word to AC Syndicate or AC3 or Skyrim. The only memorable part of the main story for me was a harem because you don't often see harems in media and this one did something one step above the first draft. I'm curious though if it's just me who couldn't connect with the setting. It's not bad in any specific way. I play these games first and foremost because they transport me into another world, they are not great but they felt artistic in that regard. If I launch Origins or even AC2 right now I'm immersed. Valhalla was the most boring setting possible but it still put me there, transported me into another (very boring) world. Baghdad feels very artificial for some reason. Might be architecture: in the name of the return of parkour, the city is filled with exaggerated climbing elements and spikes where you're not supposed to climb. Also eagle vision makes everything ugly, and if you're trying to do stealth there's no point in not being in eagle vision all the time. I thought Origins had a very good idea of removing mini-map and eagle vision to make me look at the actual game, not its schematic representation. Parkour itself is a side dish. It's not like in pre-AC3 times where the character did what you asked them allowing you to bump your head into a wall and fall to your death. It's still animations-based, and feels like autopilot. Autopilot works fine in simple parkour systems like in RPG trilogy (you have little control but it's usually obvious what will happen anyway when you press a button), but I hate how it feels in a more complex environment like in Unity or here. You have both lack of control and unpredictability. You constantly bump into situations where you don't know where Basim will try to jump. Usually it happens in a safe environment but more than once I had Basim jump around some obstacles during a chase and decided that to hell with that, I'll look for another path where Basim won't have an opportunity to jump around. I also liked that stealth is incentivized by ruthless combat till I discovered that you have 2 tools that can knock off several enemies at once. I didn't even get sleeping/berserker darts cause they'd be an even more obvious gamebreakers. Also they improved on Valhalla's idea of equipment hidden in the world by allowing you to find the same equipment several times to improve it. And you get the basic gear improved with the story so you can ignore exploration and sacrifice versatility. Too bad as a result there are like 4 types of swords in the game plus Isu sword. After Valhalla I was bitter about the future of the series. This is the least interesting game in the franchise but it's fine. I can see that very same development team doing something great if they were asked to do something more exciting than a prequel with a foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 12:44
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I'm curious though if it's just me who couldn't connect with the setting. i didn't connect with it so much that i didn't even buy the game. first mainline title in the whole series that i'm skipping. nothing against baghdad per se but i can tell even from the trailers that its a particularly uninteresting take. i think its the whole "return to traditional AC" selling point that really turned me off though, more than the setting. i hate purism in any form of art or media and catering directly to the faction of the fanbase loudly whining in that direction (after the three rpg style games made the series much more appealing to me) didn't sit well with me. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 14:33
|
|
|
I had seen enough of the combat from people I usually trust to play combat in interesting or skilled ways to know the combat was not for me. Looked incredibly bland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
Yes, combat is very simple in Mirage. In theory, this means that you should concentrate on stealth and once you're spotted you can get rid of couple of enemies and run away, because you don't have combat ability to fight more than one enemy without losses. That is until you remember you can carry a lot of tools, and e.g. smoke bomb allows you to kill up to 5 enemies, maybe 3 or 4 without a basic early upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Yes, combat is very simple in Mirage. In theory, this means that you should concentrate on stealth and once you're spotted you can get rid of couple of enemies and run away, because you don't have combat ability to fight more than one enemy without losses. Yeah, and I don't mind if combat is meant to be plan B in a game but if I do have to fight then it should be good. I want to be afraid of being overwhelmed by enemies, not underwhelmed by the gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:55
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:i didn't connect with it so much that i didn't even buy the game. first mainline title in the whole series that i'm skipping. nothing against baghdad per se but i can tell even from the trailers that its a particularly uninteresting take. my thought was basically: you dug too greedily and too deep with Valhalla, so why not just scale back the mine works a bit throwing out all the good from the mythology trilogy to revert to a weird half old style game just feels reactionary in the worst way, instead of iterating on the best parts I've got Prince of Persia to scratch my middle eastern itch though, I'm excited to play that, where nothing about mirage spoke to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
I had several red flags that made me not buy the game: the return of chain-teleport assasinations, the Layla/Loki thing (I know im in the minority here), and it being an actual prequel and not a cheeky pre-history thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
The funny thing about chain assassination is it's not very useful. I've used it 2 times after the tutorial and always forgot it exists. In Odyssey it's useful because there's an early skill slowing down time when you're spotted, and it's a perfect moment to launch chain attack, and it is chain as in you can find a second target after you've attacked the first. Here you have to see all the targets before you activate this skill and in most cases you'd rather take out enemies one by one instead of doing that thing and being exposed. Perhaps I'd use it more if there were missions where being seen resulted in a gameover like in classic AC games, but whistling and head shotting with knives is much more reliable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
I can't wait to try Mirage when it's $10, it originally being DLC for Valhalla and the fact that it's a drat prequel (but also kind of a sequel?) turned me off of checking it out really. Especially cause, y'kno, I couldn't finish Valhalla due to it being so god damned big and meandering so I don't know if I care about a Basim story, doubly so cause he seemed real boring from what I saw of him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
chain assassinations are cool when you look like a badass warrior or assassin in an action thriller scene and bad when you look like some kind of weird ghost. the move they showed in the trailer looks straight out of the Mordor games, which is fine in those games because you are some kind of weird ghost
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
Deakul posted:I can't wait to try Mirage when it's $10, it originally being DLC for Valhalla It was only originally conceived as DLC for Valhalla as an idea, it entered production as a separate game. There's much bigger difference between it and Valhalla than between Origins and Odyssey or AC3, 4 and Rogue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
I'm in the "get it on sale" camp. That said if they managed to make Abbasid-era Baghdad bland or boring holy gently caress. That's a hell of a lay up setting-wise to gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:It was only originally conceived as DLC for Valhalla as an idea, it entered production as a separate game. There's much bigger difference between it and Valhalla than between Origins and Odyssey or AC3, 4 and Rogue. Alright, then my biggest hang up is that it's a prequel about Basim(who strikes me as even more dull than Arno) and that makes me less than enthused about playing a game about him. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:09
|
|
|
I don't want to play an AC game that's a return to the old formula and I don't want to play an AC game that's a return to the new formula. I want to play a game made by someone who wants to make a game about a person in the past who goes around assassinating people, preferably by having to parkour around a city to get to their targets, and who has some interesting and new ideas about what that might look like. Ideally this game would also have a story arc for the protagonist that is a) meaningful and/or at least b) coherent and they aren't annoying. Otherwise I am just going to skip games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:25
|
|
|
One other thing I actually like about Valhalla (that I think many other people specifically dislike) is the way it's structured as all these mini-plots. I think that most of those mini-plots are actually pretty decent/memorable? They usually have a decent hook and one or two memorable characters. It at least succeeds in making me curious to find out "what the deal is in this new place." And if you don't spend time wandering around removing ticks from the map, the "region stories" are usually very concise and have very little padding. You go there, meet the relevant characters and learn about the situation, and then the situation is pretty quickly resolved. This structure also keeps the main plot pretty straight-forward and devoid of padding, since it only progresses with major events spread out across the various mini-plots. Part of the issue I ran into in Odyssey is that I just didn't care much about its main plot, and if you remove that you're basically just left with a lot of wandering around and engaging with systems. I think one of the biggest differences might be that I have zero real knowledge of or attachment to "the original series," so the complete absence of "stealthing around and plotting/executing actual assassinations" doesn't bother me (though I can easily understand why it would bother someone who has played earlier games in the series). But it's not like Odyssey is good at this either, and I feel like Valhalla is a better implementation of "AC game that is basically just a hack-and-slash action-RPG" than Odyssey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:One other thing I actually like about Valhalla (that I think many other people specifically dislike) is the way it's structured as all these mini-plots. I think that most of those mini-plots are actually pretty decent/memorable? They usually have a decent hook and one or two memorable characters. It at least succeeds in making me curious to find out "what the deal is in this new place." And if you don't spend time wandering around removing ticks from the map, the "region stories" are usually very concise and have very little padding. You go there, meet the relevant characters and learn about the situation, and then the situation is pretty quickly resolved. This structure also keeps the main plot pretty straight-forward and devoid of padding, since it only progresses with major events spread out across the various mini-plots. I liked them insofar as it was a way to make a sprawling, far too large game playable. I ended up doing one of those regional arcs every couple of weeks after I burned out and it got me through the game. Kind of like watching random "monster of the week" episodes from Star Trek or X Files. That said, it also means that when it came time to pull all those threads together the last time I saw some of those people was a year ago and I forgot why I was supposed to be happy/sad that they died/found that one guy/recovered their honor/whatever. This was especially apparent in the avengers assemble missions where you get everyone together to do a thing. Like. . . good to see you to buddy. Yeah, I sure am happy for your continued success or sad for your loss, whichever is appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:52
|
|
|
the parallel stories are fine but they feel very clearly like an artifact of trying to make a big game with many parallel workstreams at different studios more than something they would've chosen of their own accord. They still make it work but I think a game more built towards it would've gone more stuff like the Ceolbert and Ivarr stuff (and used more than two provinces to do it). It could've been much ameliorated by the addition of more people to travel with eivor imo (or again more of a sense that the animus side people are engaged with the memories at all but I get the sense they'll never do it bc people would complain). I don't think you'd even need that much; use various people for different points in the story and have e.g. dag or valka or basim provide additional flavor and develop their storylines a little with appropriate barks when you're going around sailing and whatever. They don't have to be super involved in each story, just enough to give a sense of progression and travel. I realized as I'm writing this that I'm basically describing what odyssey did with Herodotus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 02:33
|
|
|
Valentin posted:It could've been much ameliorated by the addition of more people to travel with eivor imo i don't think the game needs more people to travel with Eivor so much as giving the existing people any kind of personality at all. like the whole "camp/posse" thing works well in RDR2 because the crew is made up of a bunch of fairly well written characters who all comment and react differently to what you do and what's going on in the world. in Valhalla your crew consists of Dag - who is a sad and annoying rear end in a top hat - and a bunch of utterly generic nameless warriors who never say or do anything interesting, have no stories, don't change with the game world etc. Herodotus was certainly better in Odyssey and you could have other characters on your boat sometimes too. Though I do wish they'd done more with the lieutenant system because again once you recruit them they just become a silent generic warrior. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
I had a funny bug during the scene where (the second chapter with Ivarr/Ceolbert in it) Ivarr slits the throat of the Briton king's brother. Ivarr's model became paralyzed, such that he just shuffled around like a chess piece without moving his arms/mouth. It looked very silly. Ivarr sliding behind the king's brother and Ceolbert being like "Ivarr no!" Speaking of that chapter, the area its in is very pretty and definitely one of the better ones among the otherwise generally lackluster Valhalla environments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 19:05
|
|
|
man I can't believe you do the whole obvious final return to Norway thing and there's like three different boss fights the game could have and then it gives you all of them but they ALL suck and aren't real fights. Just incredibly disappointing stuff at a point where the game genuinely could have still stuck some kind of landing. I made a point of getting Excalibur for THIS? it's incredibly stakeless. the fight against odin comes more or less out of nowhere and tries to conclude a thematic point the game never once made, the fight against basim is equally contextless and meaningless. the sigurd stuff is like the one part that actually works, especially eivor convincing him to leave the simulation by pointing out that while he may feast and fight here forever, it is not true glory, which can only be found in how people speak of him after he is dead. it's like the one thing in the whole sequence that works and tries to do anything with the Viking stuff, the characters that we've "developed" over the story, and the specific characterization of eivor as a skald as well as a vikingr. e: generally this ending really has been pretty terrible but holy poo poo if basim's wolf t-shirt doesn't go a long way towards making up for it. Valentin fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
imo the only interesting enemy in the whole game was Fulke, also the only character i'd be interested in playing a spinoff/sequel game about. Basim was boring af
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
God a prequel game where you’re Fulke would be nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
if done right it'd be like a 3d version of Blasphemous
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:i don't think the game needs more people to travel with Eivor so much as giving the existing people any kind of personality at all. oh yeah to be clear i'm counting literally zero of the existing boat people as "characters that travel with you," they're nothing but NPC combat allies and an explanation for why your ship plays (the same) songs every time you sail. the only characters you could be said to "travel with" are each zone's specific npcs, and most of those only join for a mission or two. some further thoughts as i close things out: valhalla's kind of insane because i'm pretty sure you could have taken like half of the assets that went into this game in terms of art and writing and quest design and enemy design etc. and built like a really cool focused game with a main story that i think people would have really liked. you can feel that game trying to get out, here (like i feel like the basim boss fight probably was a functional real boss fight and not a cutscene delivery mechanism at some point, because if it were just supposed to be story delivery it would have been different from the ground up (probably)). but the problems with how it's designed on a structural level to my view obviously emerge from some kind of external factor (most likely, building 16 mini arcs with the same basic building blocks was the easiest way to parallel-build the game across 15 studios, and the fact that each team was only responsible for a certain subsection of the game probably speaks to why no one had the ability to do anything interesting with the mechanics). most of all i just can't fathom why the game is built as sort of a budget rockstar game when part of the point of the rockstar open world model is that if it were even like 10% less fancy everyone would hate it. utterly strange game. rare to play something so completely and obviously designed by committee, where the game spins out so many different subsystems (the size of that loving stats page!) only to consciously negate the impacts of each and every one in case the slightest bit of friction interferes with a seamlessly boring play experience. Valentin fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
If you really want to have opinions about how it was put together go play the France DLC aka “oh this is what it could have been”
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
Valentin posted:utterly strange game. rare to play something so completely and obviously designed by committee, where the game spins out so many different subsystems (the size of that loving stats page!) only to consciously negate the impacts of each and every one in case the slightest bit of friction interferes with a seamlessly boring play experience. the game was developed and released during the pandemic, and also the creative lead was fired halfway through for being a sex pest or something like that. so yeah the game is buggy and poorly written and wildly inconsistent but there were definitely some external factors pushing on it. if cyberpunk hadn't had their massive flop at the same time as valhalla's release, valhalla would've been a bigger scandal, but in comparison it was just a regular old mediocre but typical ubisoft game and didnt generate much outrage also i still have suspicions that it secretly started out as some kind of tie-in for the vikings tv show which was scrapped and then it was shoehorned into ac. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 22:49
|
|
|
Just finished Origins and it was pretty good. If it didn't have the AC name on it I think it's a solid 8/10 kinda game, but it's hard to divorce it from that history and not find it a bit disappointing. Yes for the obvious reasons, the dilution of the gameplay formula into something more generic and trend-chasing, but more than that it just feels like no part of the game is willing to stick its neck out and try and do something unique. It sounds ridiculous now but those early AC games genuinely did some wild stuff with social stealth, an almost obsession with diegesis, with over the top narrative choices. And not all of it worked, but the result was something genuinely original and interesting. Everything about Origins just feels safe, competent enough but everything just a little less colourful, all the edges sanded off. That said the game world is fantastic, and choosing to have everything else in service to giving you reasons to just hang out in the environments they created is a reasonable choice that I think ultimately works because of the strength of those environments, but the lack of ambition in a big budget game like this is pretty disheartening. It's a game that feels like it's carrying every ounce of the burden of the history and expectation attached to its name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
very weird and interesting playing through hamtunscire now. on the one hand i think this sequence genuinely does a lot of stuff pretty well; often games will suggest that you're facing overwhelming odds, but fail to follow through, whereas (on very hard, whatever it's called) this is the first time in the game i've been like "ah yeah we're hosed, huh". also some of the surrounding stuff like e.g. ljufvina's mourning scene i think actually works and finally kind of successfully hits the viking saga tone/register they want. it's super weird though that 1) we're briefly kind of attributing the responsibility for the historical defeat of the great heathen army in wessex on eivor for no real reason because for about five seconds you're actually in charge of guthrum and 2) we actually sort of are concluding on a note of "the rock-solid christian faith and ethnic brotherhood of england's native saxons repelled the fractious and violent pagans." between the hollowness of sigurd's valhalla and guthrum's final turn towards christianity i feel like we uncritically repeat a pretty obviously biased narrative about the viking age without reflecting on it much at all. and i don't know much at all about the period, i just mean they seem to be accidentally replicating an energy. it ends up having the same tone as interpreting ragnarok as a cultural story about how the eventual historical victory of christianity was inevitable. it just clearly is intended to be a sad and bittersweet ending where the characters suffer personal loss, eivor completes her personal arc away from violence that the game kind of vaguely gestures at, and it's clear that alfred will actually successfully repel the danes and the age of raiding and war that eivor knows is coming to an end. but they also feel like they have to make eivor a victorious leader of men suddenly so there's an obvious inconsistency in tone. also you bounce right before a lot of the actually interesting stuff happens! there's this great tone of the end of (this phase of) the viking age in england as at last the great heathen army hits a wall and the sons of ragnar lothbrok all are dead. but we don't actually engage with the history of it at all. honestly, playing hamtunscire gives a much clearer picture to me of what the initial pitch for valhalla could have looked like. given the game's interest in the passage of time, the emphasis on kingdoms and shires, the fact that e.g. what you do in mercia directly reflects specific historical events, and the fact that we open and close with the great heathen army, i think there could have been a really compelling version of this game where you're explicitly following the progress of the great heathen army. you can arrive after york is already occupied you could even use "sigurd goes crazy and flees to norway" as a reason to pull the game's focus away from the campaign for a bit and return just in time to participate in the final defeat in wessex, and then eivor leaves for the americas as her people either assimilate and leave behind raiding or are driven out of england. but if the game was ever more interested in that stuff it clearly fell by the wayside pretty early. Valentin fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jan 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 00:16
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:Just finished Origins and it was pretty good. If it didn't have the AC name on it I think it's a solid 8/10 kinda game, but it's hard to divorce it from that history and not find it a bit disappointing. Yes for the obvious reasons, the dilution of the gameplay formula into something more generic and trend-chasing, but more than that it just feels like no part of the game is willing to stick its neck out and try and do something unique. It sounds ridiculous now but those early AC games genuinely did some wild stuff with social stealth, an almost obsession with diegesis, with over the top narrative choices. And not all of it worked, but the result was something genuinely original and interesting. Everything about Origins just feels safe, competent enough but everything just a little less colourful, all the edges sanded off. That said the game world is fantastic, and choosing to have everything else in service to giving you reasons to just hang out in the environments they created is a reasonable choice that I think ultimately works because of the strength of those environments, but the lack of ambition in a big budget game like this is pretty disheartening. It's a game that feels like it's carrying every ounce of the burden of the history and expectation attached to its name. Just played the second dlc and I take back everything good I said, gently caress this game
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Lol AC games are some of the only ones where playing the DLC actually makes the game worse Like "oh you like padding? here's 20-40 more hours of it bitch!!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 18:41
|
|
