Assassin's Creed Valhalla doesn't catch me like the previous versions am I weird?

[nguyen]

AC Valhalla is probably the worst looking game I have seen in 2020, together with boring combat there really is no incentive for me to play the game.

 

[dogwitch]

AC Valhalla is probably the worst looking game I have seen in 2020, together with boring combat there really is no incentive for me to play the game.

on looking. what platform you playing it on?

 

[nguyen]

on looking. what platform you playing it on?

on PC, even at 4K max settings the game doesn't look any better than Witcher 3 to me.

 

[dogwitch]

on PC, even at 4K max settings the game doesn't look any better than Witcher 3 to me.

ah. yeah something relating to textures. seem to be a issue with pc version. seeing it got a texture upgraded on series x compare to last gen console...
but this is ubi.. never known for great pc ports.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Earlier this year Steam had a really awesome sale on Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey so I purchased them because I really love the games when they were released together with Assassin's Creed Syndicate.

Now I have also tried Assassin's Creed Valhalla a 2-3 times from the beginning but like a couple of hours in I lose interrest in the game and it doesn't catch me like Origin, Odyssey and Syndicate did so am I weird?

The play style I am like meh with because it's vikings they wasn't as nimble as assassin's doing the victorian times, egypt or greek times but I feel like something is holding me back because I rather game any of the other 3 games then starting up Valhalla.

That is your opinion of the game. You dont need validation from others one way or the other. If you dont like the game, you dont like the game.

Back with Batman Arkham Knight released on PC, people were saying it was a buggy mess and unplayable. I didnt have any issues on my computer and had a great time playing the game and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Dont take in account other peoples views for games, movies, etc. Things that get review bombed, I tend to like and enjoy.

 

[nguyen]

That is your opinion of the game. You dont need validation from others one way or the other. If you dont like the game, you dont like the game.

Back with Batman Arkham Knight released on PC, people were saying it was a buggy mess and unplayable. I didnt have any issues on my computer and had a great time playing the game and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Dont take in account other peoples views for games, movies, etc. Things that get review bombed, I tend to like and enjoy.

I actually finished Batman Arkam Knight at launch without any problem (because I had the Titan X Maxwell with 12GB VRAM, the game stutter like mad even with the 980 Ti) then returned the game because I don't support shitty port
Can't return Valhalla sadly because I bought it on Epic

 

[rbgc]

AC Origins 192 hours (100%), Odyssey 544 hours (100%, 96% achievements), Valhalla 0 hours.

 

[The red spirit]

No, it's not weird. These are reiterations of the same gameplay mechanics and tropes over and over, just like Far Cry games. I've stopped playing AC after Syndicate, it just simply feels like you're playing the same game with a different setting.

That's a shame, up until FC3, series were fresh. FC4 was a start of malaise.

 

[phanbuey]

That's a shame, up until FC3, series were fresh. FC4 was a start of malaise.

IDK i really loved FC3 and FC4 was more of the same, same with FC5.

IMO there isn't a better open world shooter out there. FC4 was one of the first FPS where you can get in a chopper and fly / parachute anywhere you want. Also the graphics were nuts for it's time. Stories were great, graphics were great, gunplay is very good, customization was present, acting was very good, felt super open... you cant find games that tick all those checkboxes.

 

[Cheese_On_tsaot]

Ass games have always been a boring failure IMO.

 

[The red spirit]

IDK i really loved FC3 and FC4 was more of the same, same with FC5.

IMO there isn't a better open world shooter out there. FC4 was one of the first FPS where you can get in a chopper and fly / parachute anywhere you want. Also the graphics were nuts for it's time. Stories were great, graphics were great, gunplay is very good, customization was present, acting was very good, felt super open... you cant find games that tick all those checkboxes.

I'm still a bit undecided about FC4. It would have been great if there weren't FC3. It really borrowed too much from FC3. It felt like the same engine, same graphics, same sounds, different settings, quite similar story. It really wasn't a leap like from FC1 to FC3, where everything felt fresh. It wasn't a bad game, but way too much of everything was recycled. I think that FC Blood Dragon was kinda interesting and a bit of modern throwback to FC1. It was kinda fun, just very short. Unfortunately FC5 to me was too much. I played it a bit, but it just felt really boring and story to me was too "try hard". It felt as dreadful (or as great) as something like Oblivion at that point. Great if you like that, but to me Far Cry just isn't about that.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

I actually finished Batman Arkam Knight at launch without any problem (because I had the Titan X Maxwell with 12GB VRAM, the game stutter like mad even with the 980 Ti) then returned the game because I don't support shitty port
Can't return Valhalla sadly because I bought it on Epic

I ran it with a 980 at the time just fine. no stutters or anything. Just smooth sailing.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm still a bit undecided about FC4. It would have been great if there weren't FC3. It really borrowed too much from FC3. It felt like the same engine, same graphics, same sounds, different settings, quite similar story. It really wasn't a leap like from FC1 to FC3, where everything felt fresh. It wasn't a bad game, but way too much of everything was recycled. I think that FC Blood Dragon was kinda interesting and a bit of modern throwback to FC1. It was kinda fun, just very short. Unfortunately FC5 to me was too much. I played it a bit, but it just felt really boring and story to me was too "try hard". It felt as dreadful (or as great) as something like Oblivion at that point. Great if you like that, but to me Far Cry just isn't about that.

FC5 story... lol. They tried to sprinkle some GTA flair in it but oh how they failed... I think the game's whole setting is more a fashion statement than anything else, which explains why the pink spinoff worked so well in the same world. The only cool bit I found there was climbing the first water tower to find an easter egg saying something about climbing towers in Ubi games. It was so memorable I forgot how it was exactly. Oh. And the whole weird cultist vibe missed the mark so hard trying not to offend anyone by doing silly things and moving into ridiculous. It should have been ten shades darker and more miserable. That's what made Vaas work in FC3...

Ubisoft still tries to make statements in games. But I think the only real one, was in AC1. The way they put religion on the spot there, in so many ways within the game and its setting is just absolutely brilliant. And it went over many heads apparently seeing as there was no outrage, but man. That was cool. The whole story was on several levels really.

 

[The red spirit]

FC5 story... lol. They tried to sprinkle some GTA flair in it but oh how they failed...

Strong disagree. What exactly GTA alike is there? I see nothing. What they did is pulling one of the common and lame tropes from other mediums of some evil and some brainwashing, then applied that to FC5. It was cringy AF. In FC3 it kinda worked out, in FC4 it was borderline functional, in FC5 they just crossed the line. And huge world in Far Cry was a fail from get go. FC1 wasn't fun because of its world, but due to atmosphere and generally high adrenaline gameplay. It played like UT2004, but with lots of stealth. FC3, FC4, FC5 were a lot easier games, but in terms of gun play, not exactly that great. FC3 had a lot of other things working well to cover that, FC4 had less and FC5 had nearly nothing.

I think the game's whole setting is more a fashion statement than anything else, which explains why the pink spinoff worked so well in the same world. The only cool bit I found there was climbing the first water tower to find an easter egg saying something about climbing towers in Ubi games. It was so memorable I forgot how it was exactly. Oh. And the whole weird cultist vibe missed the mark so hard trying not to offend anyone by doing silly things and moving into ridiculous. It should have been ten shades darker and more miserable. That's what made Vaas work in FC3...

Please don't remember me of those towers. That was a poor choice for any FC game. As I said, FC1 defined what FC franchise is and some RPG mechanics like this just aren't a great addition. It just slows down the game and doesn't really provide value. FC1 didn't even have a map and any of teleporting crap, it just put you where you are supposed to be and you figured out yourself where to go (with some hints).

FC5 was, as you say, a fashion statement. The whole setting reeks of that. When FC5 launched, market already had quite a bit of similar games. So I guess they wanted to cash in too, well it's Ubi after all. Anyway, I didn't like setting at all. It just looked plain. It was just some lame ass forest with nothing interesting in it. It wasn't exotic or particularly dangerous place either. All that religious crap was a big turn off for me and I didn't like it one bit, but neither I liked that old cop that accompanied player in intro. He was just as bad. Also game progression was just infuriatingly slow, it felt like a chore to play it, rather than working towards something and enjoying it during progress.

Easter eggs to me don't matter. I may enjoy them if I really liked some game, but I'm just not into them. A good game, should always prioritize gameplay first, not some knick knacks or graphical eye candy. FC5 proved to be a lackluster experience and in terms of gameplay, they still reused same game engine from FC3, which is very outdated and it never really felt nearly as nice to play as FC1's.

I will leave my ratings of all FC games that I have completed so far + FC5 from as much as I have played. They are subjective AF, but I don't care:
FC1 5/5
FC3 4/5
FC Blood Dragon 4.5/5
FC4 3.75/5
FC5 2/5

Ubisoft still tries to make statements in games. But I think the only real one, was in AC1. The way they put religion on the spot there, in so many ways within the game and its setting is just absolutely brilliant. And it went over many heads apparently seeing as there was no outrage, but man. That was cool. The whole story was on several levels really.

Oh... I haven't played AC1 myself. I only tried AC2 on X360, because I got it for free. It felt like a great game, but parkour mechanics were badly made. And X360 is a bad platform to play nearly anything on, due to low fps. I was never into AC series myself, but maybe I should sometime check out AC1, but I'm afraid I really can't play AC1. It doesn't have any subtitles and I really need those, as I have hearing problems and hearing aids don't help me enough. That's a shame. Many old games had quite dodgy support for subtitles and they were otherwise great games, but as deaf person they are automatically unplayable due to that.

 

[Ruru]

Well, personally I haven't ever got in to the AC series even though I have few on Steam/Ubi. But for me, they look just like a typical sports game's yearly updates.

 

[Vayra86]

Strong disagree. What exactly GTA alike is there? I see nothing. What they did is pulling one of the common and lame tropes from other mediums of some evil and some brainwashing, then applied that to FC5. It was cringy AF. In FC3 it kinda worked out, in FC4 it was borderline functional, in FC5 they just crossed the line. And huge world in Far Cry was a fail from get go. FC1 wasn't fun because of its world, but due to atmosphere and generally high adrenaline gameplay. It played like UT2004, but with lots of stealth. FC3, FC4, FC5 were a lot easier games, but in terms of gun play, not exactly that great. FC3 had a lot of other things working well to cover that, FC4 had less and FC5 had nearly nothing.

Hang on, attempts at approaching a GTA flair, in terms of characters, the so called 'funny things' they placed left and right and all those easter eggs that never escaped the level of bottom barrel writing. Not the gameplay, but the way they dressed the whole thing. So yeah, what you're saying in sentence #2.

Realshame about AC1 for you, maybe they'll remaster it with subs one day huh

 

[The red spirit]

Hang on, attempts at approaching a GTA flair, in terms of characters, the so called 'funny things' they placed left and right and all those easter eggs that never escaped the level of bottom barrel writing. Not the gameplay, but the way they dressed the whole thing. So yeah, what you're saying in sentence #2.

That's not similar. GTA 5 was full of lame pop culture jokes and was lot like parody of it (I find that boring, but whatever). FC5 seems to take itself for more seriously and dumb. There's a difference between making a parody and between not knowing how to make a proper sci-fi.

Well, personally I haven't ever got in to the AC series even though I have few on Steam/Ubi. But for me, they look just like a typical sports game's yearly updates.

They sort of are, but when AC1 AC2 came out, there was nothing like them on the market and it felt fresh. Right now I can't tell AC Odyssey from Valhalla and for that matter them both from Horizon Zero Dawn. They look so similar in screenshots and at least from screenshots and gameplay, look like rather dull games to play. Unlike sports games, they don't end up depreciating as badly, when you can find them in bargain bin for Euro or two, since nobody wants old FIFA, even if game itself isn't bad, just old. The depreciation of FIFA games is so bad, that I think that BluRay itself (or DVD-HD) is worth more than what game is selling for.

 

[Ruru]

but when AC1 AC2 came out

Yeah I remember that, they looked hella great then and got positive reviews. I should give a try some day as a little outdated graphics isn't a problem for me.

 

[The red spirit]

Yeah I remember that, they looked hella great then and got positive reviews. I should give a try some day as a little outdated graphics isn't a problem for me.

I lately haven't been playing modern games much. I mostly alternate between Red Faction Guerilla and UT 2004. Graphics don't make games fun, but anyway, AC2, at least as I remember, looks great.

It certainly looks like an older game, but it doesn't look bad at all. It should still look decent today.

 

[arni-gx]

i am so sorry, is there any one playing this game, today ??? or, from the last few weeks ??

 

[Shou Miko]

i am so sorry, is there any one playing this game, today ??? or, from the last few weeks ??

There properly is somewhere, why you got a graphical issue with the game or?

 

[Flogger23m]

I'll play the DLC eventually. Game is just kind of bland. Passable and fun enough to keep going. But it took 100 hours to finish, give or take.

 

[arni-gx]

There properly is somewhere, why you got a graphical issue with the game or?

yeah, some bugs in this game....

I'll play the DLC eventually. Game is just kind of bland. Passable and fun enough to keep going. But it took 100 hours to finish, give or take.

i have finished all main quest in this ACV, within 130 hours..... not include DLC storyline such as dawn of ragnarok, druid, city of paris....... because i have not playing that DLC's......

anyway, how is good this ACVH compared with AC ODY and AC ORG...... ??

 

[Flogger23m]

yeah, some bugs in this game....



i have finished all main quest in this ACV, within 130 hours..... not include DLC storyline such as dawn of ragnarok, druid, city of paris....... because i have not playing that DLC's......

anyway, how is good this ACVH compared with AC ODY and AC ORG...... ??

Odyssey is based around paid boosters, so if you're okay with paying for timed boosters with real money go for it. If you hate that concept, don't buy it.

Origins is okay, I liked Egypt but it too dragged on too long at times.

 

[Vayra86]

AC1 combat was about as deep as a fata morgana but it worked, it was balanced, it was challenging and enjoyable. The balance was done well, as in, if you pay good attention and time things well, you can get your counter/parry moves off and win. If you mash buttons at any point, you'll get destroyed. Fighting was as a result never a thing you would 'just do', because there was no reward for killing anyone, but it did cost time and effort. If we speak of good game design, that's it right there. Its 'implicit' in what it wants you to do. You can fight all day, and if you want to, by all means, but its not what carries the narrative of your progress. The natural result is that players will do exactly that: they'll enjoy the sandbox however they want, but eventually will prefer stealth over combat.

Strangely, without a single RPG number involved. And yet you did progress, as you got more and easier ways to avoid combat as you played. And you'd naturally build some skill fighting dudes, learning their attack patterns etc, which served as a natural form of progression.

As a matter of fact, progression was overall of little relevance. What mattered and was front and center, was the immersive experience. Being the assassin.

When you review one of these 'ahead of their time' games, you get to notice how little innovation happens in big publisher games and how every innovation gets sucked dry beyond sense.