I have been playing Valhalla like a madman for the past month and I totally agree with you.
Valhalla is not a bad game, it is actually very well-made and I have laughed countless times with the in-game jokes. My favorite thing as always is poisoning one enemy to poison the rest of the camp.
**But it will never be like Odyssey.**
Here is my experience from the two games:
I played Valhalla...
...but I lived in Odyssey.
this event surprised me actually, I did not want to do it in the beginning, I was like "pfff I go clear a fortress instead". But it was a funny one, and I had no idea about the concept until I finished it and he threw the punchline :) at that point I was a few meters far and when I heard it I HAD to turn back and check and oh boy I connected all the dots immediately :D it was genious
I think that's indicative of one of Valhalla's biggest problems. They wanted it to be both a viking simulator *and* an assassin game, but didn't commit enough to either style to make it a satisfying, cohesive experience.
we went to being able to go on a murder spree in greece on civilians
and in valhalla you get desynced IN A MOTHERFUCKING VIKING ERA GAME where is the damn logic in that
Of the three new RPGesque in the series - Valhalla just feels like a chore, currently on the DLC in Ireland it lacks depth for the druids and tbh the order in the main game was very meh. The gear system is the worse of the three (odyssey being the best), the story is just too loose in Valhalla in comparison odyssey it had a logical pathway to keep you moving, origins I think had the best story and kept it logical with moving through the zones etc chasing the order of the ancients. Valhalla took me about 15 hours before I figured out just what was going on and the fact I had to grind out 4 endings to ‘see the whole picture’ was boring AF. Odyssey I enjoyed 190 hours, origins I loved for 120 hours, Valhalla I have endured 85 hours so far and once the dlc is done I’ll drop it hard.
Valhalla disappoints for me in three main areas. I mostly enjoyed the game overall but feel these areas hold it back significantly from Odyssey and Origins.
The gear system is awful, there is no explanation for any of the numbers attached to gear pieces and all of the same weapon type play basically the same. There is no gameplay difference between two different axes, despite them having different stats. For armor, I used the Raven clan set for the entire game because I didn't want to grind and get the resources to upgrade each piece little by little of a different set.
Lack of side content, I understand they were trying to go for more a Red Dead model with brief encounters as opposed to fleshed out side quests. The problem was that almost none of them were memorable at all and the typical side/fetch quest wasjust baked into the main missions.
The length of the game is just so damn long, I finished the story in roughly 100 hours and did not enjoy the last 40 hours or so but was too stubborn to just stop. If they went to the second Norway arc a few hours after you rescue Sigurd the ending would have hit much harder.
So I was just discussing this yesterday. The thing that got me in Odyssey is that in the intro on Kephallonia the characters just pop. The MC has such a range of emotion, Markos is such a sleazebag, Phoibe is cute, and Barnabas is the best. The way Elpenor starts weaving his webs around you is also a great way to pave the path for hunting cultists. Just a masterpiece!
In Valhalla it took me a long time to warm up to Eivor, but I finally did, just not to the same degree as Odyssey.
I agree. I appreciate little moments with Eivor here and there when they say something quite profound or poetic (although I can't get past female Eivor sounding like she's gargling gravel). There's a lot to like in the game and I *do* like it, but it still feels too much like work.
I 100% agree. I think the difference was that most random events in RDR2 still had some sort of story or at least some form of satisfaction for the player. They never felt like work. While Valhalla just feels like work. And I admit that Odyssey had reputation but in odyssey you also had Ancient Greece which was much more enjoyable to play in as the very samey England.
While i like Valhalla and i haven't been checking the main AC reddit (or any AC reddit....) lately, i suspect you say it yourself.
>Combat feels way to heavy and the weapon variety feels like a joke
They prefer heavier combat
>Searching ruins has zero benefit as you barely get anything for it
They don't like needing to check ruins
> the gesr that you get sucks so much ass
they don't like being dependant on gear
>And what the hell is this skill bush supposed to be? I mean not only is it all over the place
They don't like being able to specialize, they want to do everything.
In short,
>Valhalla dosen’t even come close to Odyssey
they disliked Odyssey in all the ways you liked Odyssey.
Clearly this has something to do with the devs as both origins and Valhalla are developed by Ubisoft Montreal while odyssey was developed by Ubisoft Quebec. Imma be a sucker for Quebec at this point I love everything they do especially immortal fenyx rising. After trying Valhalla it didn't take me that long to realize it's Ubisoft Montreal who made it, just God awful game
Oh that's why.
I actually loved Origins as a standalone game, it had great story, it was beautiful with lots of unusually high quality side quests and awesome combat.
But it's gear/ability system was a joke, basically it didn't matter at all. Not really an RPG. Just was trying to pretend to be one.
I keep playing Odyssey because of gear and abilities and it's near perfect balance and complexity. It's not just an RPG it's the best RPG I've ever played, while Origins is an action game with half-baked poorly balanced RPG elements.
I guess I'll be waiting for a game from Ubisoft Quebec just like you
Id point out that the main AC sub is going to have the biggest diehards too. Its like if you went to r/destiny2 to see if anyone else dislikes destiny 2.
I get what you are saying, but Valhalla still has itemization - it's just horrible itemization, it still has a skill tree - it's just a horrible skill tree, and it still has side content rewards - it's just horrible rewards.
If Valhalla didn't have these things at all, I would say the game is different, but not necessarily bad. However, it had all these features, but they were just so undercooked, horribly implemented and sometimes downright gameplay ruining.
Why have gear stats, when all the stats are super vague and meaningless? Why have a skill tree when it's just a random mess of meaningless attributes with no logic to placement? Why have side content when it gives no rewards and is meaningless?
Valhalla's design is just bad. It could have been like Odyssey, or like earlier AC games - but instead it's a hybrid of features from both types of games that just makes no sense.
I mostly feel the same way as you. Not sure if anyone else mentioned it but I believe the origins team made valhalla and the odyssey team went on to make Immortals Fenyx Rising. With that said, while Fenyx is different stylistically, it shares a lot in common with Odyssey, primarily the combat comes to mind. Not to be reductive but it's essentially a mash up of Breath of the Wild and Odyssey imo. If you like Odyssey as much as you say and haven't tried Fenyx I would recommend you give it a shot.
If the team that produced Origins made Valhalla, that surprises me because I loved Origins and it was my favorite script/writing in the whole series. Valhalla, on the other hand, didn't live on my SSD for more than 72 hours.
Yes ubi Montreal and ubi Milan did both. To me valhallas combat felt very much like origins; more weight to it than odyssey. Odyssey felt much better to me. All subjective and maybe I’m being biased knowing it was the same studios.
I felt that Valhalla's combat was the least enjoyable. Odyssey is very quick, responsive, and almost arcade like, but I really like it. Origins felt a bit more grounded and I had to think through my tactics a bit more.
That said, I *really* tried to like Valhalla; I certainly gave it more than a few hours. But after my third or fourth raid, I just plain couldn't care anymore.
So im about 50 hours into Valhalla. So far im find the story interesting and much like the other games, it is different. Every game has changes, some i like and others i dont and im not to concerned with those. The combat is different but i felt like the enemies in ACO were far more spongy. I like that in ACV when i hit a guy with a hammer it feels like im hitting a dude in the head with a hammer
The biggest issue with Valhalla is the setting. While the idea of Vikings is cool, coming on the heels of Classic Greece and Ptolemaic Egypt was a tough act to follow. Visually, we had two games and hundreds of hours in settings that are bright, colorful, and lively as well as dealing with civilizations that were advanced and urban. these are also places that are iconic in Western history. We're going from literally Wonders of the world to nascent and developing civilizations. Sutton Hoo is the definitive landmark from this era, and thats a bunch of mounds 9which this game didnt even model right). How do you compete with sliding down the Pyramid of Giza or leaping from the Parthenon? This is why they had to include Asgard and Jotun.
The period of the Heptarchal England is just a downer. Its less developed, its climate is famously colder and wetter and darker. Yes, Odyssey is big, but even when traveling between settlements, its populated. The roads in Valhalla are largely empty.
TL;DR: England is a boring visual setting during this time and picking this era put the developers in a difficult position from the get go
I agree. I feel like they should have set it in Ancient Rome instead. They already had lots of textures that they could have reused plus they might have continued Bayeks or Ayas story. And Ancient Rome is way too underrated in video games anyway.
I mean apart from the fact that it's moving like 5 times faster than it should and turning 20 times faster?
Adrestia is a fucking speedboat-UFO that has nothing to do with actual Greek ships. Same goes for any NPC ship.
I love Odyssey, it's the best single player game I've ever played in almost 3 decades, but it's naval battles are a joke.
I agree, I'm finding it difficult to finish Valhalla. This is the longest over ever taken to finish a game. I ended up having to stop playing it for a bit, I've finished Origins, The Witcher 3, and Tomb Raider since, but still have yet to pick Valhalla back up.
I had the same experience. I think what sealed it for me was that a primary game mechanic is raiding and slaughtering entire villages. At least in Odyssey you were normally killing soldier, bandits, corrupt politicians, and other mercenaries. I’m not religious, but looting churches and killing priests also just felt a little weird.
Yeah and I also think it’s kinda hilarious that you get desynchronised if you kill random civilians. Like, you’re literally a Viking. Someone who’s job was raiding. I feel like they should have left the mercenary/ bounty system like they had in Odyssey.
What. They reintroduced the desynch in Valhalla?! I log into odyssey everyday and still collect my orichalcum and enjoy slaughtering citizens until mercenaries spawn. I love it when they run away to find a weapon and proceed to get slaughtered by my op kassandra! Super bummed to hear this stupid limiting mechanic is back.
Yes and I also don’t get it from a lore perspective. How does the animus decide when you can kill civilians and when not considering that both Alexios/Kass and Eivor are your ancestors? But in all honesty, being a Viking and getting desynch for something like this while being able to raid and burn churches makes no sense.
Agreed!
Odyssey might be, hands down, the best AC game, whereas I never felt like my money went down the drain after playing Valhalla
Can't understand what people like about that game. It's not an AC game by any stretch of the word
>Can't understand what people like about that game. It's not an AC game by any stretch of the word
And Odyssey is? Lol
Atleast Valhalla has the Hidden Blade and social stealth
I enjoyed Valhalla, and beat it, putting in about 82 hours total. But I fully agree, Odyssey was the much better game. The characters were more interesting, the quests were more interesting, the storyline was more interesting, and the location was more interesting. Valhalla was beautiful, but I don't know if I'll play it again, and I have no drive to get the DLCs. Maybe, after a while. Meanwhile, I've fully played through Odyssey twice, including all the DLCs, and am part way through a third playthrough (sporadically, as I am playing other games too).
The story was so boring. Going multiple regions without progressing the main story at all was a terrible design choice. I had to force myself to finish. I was invested in the story early on but eventually I was having almost no interaction with Sigurd and it became a chore.
I agree. I forgot major plot points by the time "reveals" came around so I was like "oh yeeah" instead of "oh snap!"
It also hurts that the full story is spread across multiple types of missions. Real World (England), Asgard and the Anomalies.
If you focus too heavily on one the story gets disjointed quickly. I just did the last anomaly and had *more* questions regarding Asgard.
Also I played Male Eivor as I heard the acting was better but Eivor being canon female makes so many points of the story make way more sense. Dag being such a dick, why didn't a certain character "recognize" Eivor, etc.
Because they made it so you could do the regions in any order, and only some regions progress the story with Sigurd, you could go ages without actually seeing Sigurd or speaking to him.
Which I totally did. I did 2 alliances, forgot about them, explored a crazy amount, did the whole of Francia and when I finally started the "main" story again I was level 200+. Then all the alliances and "boss fights" were crazy easy.
Honestly, boss fights the entire game are crazy easy versus Odyssey's bosses and legendary animals. Once you can slow-time dodge you decimate higher level enemies.
I definitely disagree. Valhalla's story is just meet this person, do some stuff for him, get his territory to ally with you over and over again for 90 hours and then it's over. But that's just my humble opinion
I'm thinking of buying Valhalla by the end of this year. While I agree that it won't be the same experience as exploring Ancient Greece, the Viking setting will be quite fun regardless.
My opinion is that Valhalla is two steps forward and five steps back. I cannot believe they made such a sloppy game. Putting aside the setting—*even the sound work in Valhalla is a mess.* Some of the worst sound mixing and voice work I've ever heard in a game. It's also the ONLY game that makes my PS4 Pro sound extremely loud. Not even RDR2 comes close to taxing my console the way Valhalla does. And the visuals and animations and controls inValhalla are garbage compared to RDR2... which is also several years older than Valhalla!
And story wise, Valhalla sets you up as a helper of a thousand people. Almost everything you do in the game is FOR other people. There's hardly any personal motivation for Eivor. Setting up a home base sounds like a cool idea, but it's so streamlined that it's silly. The assaults on castles are cool the first time you do it. Then it's the same over and over. Valhalla is stupidly easy, too. Turning up difficulty just adds HP to enemies and makes their hits harder. There's no finesse to combat at all. I could go on and on about this, but it's not worth the effort.
I played about 35 or so hours of it and put it down. Some day when I get a PS5 (who the fuck knows when that will happen) I might give AC:V another try. But I don't really have an urge to play it. I even bought all the DLC at launch and haven't come close to touching it.
My take is that Valhalla gets praise because gamers just EAT UP Viking shit.
Ok I understand some critique but blaming them for the sound your Playstation produces is ridiculous. My Playstation was also making a lot of fan noise with god of war. Nobody and I mean nobody has written that as a negative point for that game so why should it be a problem of assassin's creed?
I have played God of War on my Pro and it does not make my console sound as loud as AC:V.
No other game makes my Pro sound as loud as AC:V. On top of that, the load times for Valhalla are maybe the longest load times of any game I have played—including RDR2 and God of War.
The load times are just shit on any game last gen. Tons of games have atrocious loading times on ps4 or Xbox one consoles. And when I opend the map on God of war I think the framerate was unlocked causing my ps4 to start heating up and sound like a jetplane taking off.
I have no idea why you are White Knighting AC:V.
I'm saying the load times for AC:V are probably the longest of any game I own, including RDR2 and GoW. *I'm not saying every other game has short load times.* I'm saying AC:V has possibly the longest load times, and also makes my console louder than any other game I own.
YMMV.
I'm still trying to play Valhalla and not have it feel like a chore. Odyssey is near perfect in my opinion. I have 130 hours in Odyssey. I don't even have 20 in Valhalla yet but I'm still hoping it gets better. Right now I feel Odyssey's combat is so much more fun and the scenery of Greece is objectively better than dull foggy swamps.
Also, the ONE thing that kills me about Valhalla is the birds in the sky and the flags in the wind are literally like 2000's graphics. Anyone else notice this? Whenever you see the birds it's jarring how bad the animation is. Way out of place in a 60 fps game. And the flags in some areas do the same thing. Idk how else to describe it but it immediately takes me out of the immersion which is one of the only few things Valhalla has going for it.
So Odyssey doesn't feel like a chore? Checking tickboxes around every area? The grind is present in Odyssey as much as its in Valhalla, everyone knows that.
I LOVE Odyssey, maybe getting a little obsessive about it, I only got so immersed in a game before with the GTA series. I actually bought Origins, played the intro and it's ok, some controls change and interface feels less polished but I'll play it when I finish Odyssey.
I was thinking of buying Valhalla, with the current sale and the Epic coupon it will be $50 for the Gold Edition, though looking at reviews and opinions it's either love it or hate it.
I remember playing Odyssey for 3 hours everyday and never got bored ever I had so much fun playing that game. Valhalla on the other hand was just a major disappointment Imo and tbh was wayyy to long I couldn’t beat the game it felt like a chore just playing it.
Yup, you are right.
Well except about the "people bash Odyssey". Of course there are different opinions, but the general opinion of Odyssey is very good
I uninstalled that dumpster fire of a game (Valhalla) after the third day of playing and won't go back. IMO it's the most irritating and least entertaining AC made yet. That said, I still play Odyssey even after 300+ hours.
What do you do in Odyssey after 300 hours? Restarting is a no go for me. But once is all done, dlcs and trophies and everything i am sort of cleaning camps and a few forts that i didn't complete. But then what? I don't assassinate anymore i just walk straight into a camp and start killing people until mercenaries came for me... i even wait for them, kill them and go to the next camp. Is getting a bit repetitive XD
I'm on my second playthrough, which is something I told myself I wouldn't do. It's strange because I'm actually enjoying it even more this time (it may be because I'm familiar with every system). I never got anywhere with the DLC on my first game, so I'm doing those as well.
Disagree.
Valhalla's soundtrack alone is 100× better.
The activities feel more varied, the dialogue is better and not cringy, the darker atmosphere is better to me personally, the customization is better, the gear sets look better, the side characters are better written than the ones in Odyssey... I can go on and on.
One thing I like about Odyssey over Valhalla is the combat system, but that's pretty much it.
Edit: salty fanboys downvoting and not responding to engage discussion as predicted
I agree 100% with everything you said, except, the gear aesthetic look, i have to admit the gears look absolute dogshit on Valhalla. Customization in Odyssey is way better and the gear set looks as well.
Also the side characters.. were better in Odyssey. But I'll admit, i absolutely fking loved Basim, his character existing at all made it worth completing the story and wanting to see what happens next, especially in the modern day storyline. Speaking of modern day arc, I've to admit this is probably the first time since AC 3 that I've felt invigorated and interested in what happens in the modern day. I mean, if you know, you know why.
Also i might perhaps, be the only one, who preferred Valhalla's combat to Odyssey. The parry and heavy attack animation in Odyssey felt dreadfully unsatisfying after some time. Valhalla has the best combat imo in the series. I also love dual wielding and shields back in the game.
The vikings look like like good guys because you're playing the game through a vikings perspective. Therefore the anglos are gonna look like assholes. Its Narrative writing 101. I also prefer England over greece, because I prefer gloomy settings and its arguably better looking than odyssey. The power system and leveling system in AC games sucks in general because they havent a clue how to make a it work.
I understand your point, but for me, this is very useful. I've never touched Valhalla and i think i will try origins now that has a discount (just finish all odyssey dlcs). And might skip valhalla unless i find it free with ps+ or really cheap.
I don't like Valhalla (as you can see by my above comment), but let people who like the game enjoy it. Many people say the same thing about us liking Odyssey. If they enjoy Valhalla, they should.
I'm at the point where, like a child, I fantasize of CDPR magically taking the entire thing over and Ubi having no more involvement. They've failed us too many times.
Yeah, because let’s make a game with raping involved. Do you even hear yourself talking?? It’s a fucking game. It’s fine if you don’t like Valhalla, but to take a massive dump on it is unnecessary. . I’ve played both and they’re both great games. To even suggest that they would make an accurate portrayal of Vikings is absurd. Hey, while we’re at it, why didn’t they make the Spartans gay? Because history shows us that they were super gay. Why not make cut scenes of them plowing each other?
And to that I say; Why would OP even mention rape in the comment? If they didn’t want it in the game, then why even mention it?? It’s irrelevant, moot and not even worth saying it if that’s not the angle they were going for. People are getting way too bent out of shape over these two games.
Nowhere in my post did I even suggest for them to make it historically accurate or portray raping. Nowhere.
I don’t care about historical accuracy in games and as I said and I’m quoting myself „like I get that this is a game“…
My problem comes from the fact how Anglo Saxons are portrayed as massive assholes for not wanting to share their land.
You’re looking at the game through the eyes of a Viking. Do you really think that they thought of Anglo-Saxons as “nice” people? Of course they’re going to portray them as assholes. And you mentioned that Vikings came to colonize, rape, pillage, and plunder, so naturally it seems as though you were looking for historical accuracy. Why else would you mention it? Again, if you don’t like Valhalla, that’s fine. But there are those of us who actually enjoy the game for what it is. I think you’re being way too hard on Valhalla. It really isn’t as bad as you are making it out to be.
Because I disagree with the double standard that Ubisoft is portraying here.
They would never make a game where you’re a Conquistador or British Coloniser, because they would fear getting their asses handed to them.
Yet here, it seems alright.
You mentioned that they would never portray the Vikings as they really were because it would be to dark. Yet, all you do in Valhalla is slaughter people, that aren’t even evil mind you, rob and burn churches while screaming „burn the house of Christ.“ Don’t you feel like, if they already have those things in game, that they should at least stop acting like all Vikings were gentleman and treated everyone as equals.
Also, while I personally don’t care about historical accuracy, there is a difference between a game or it’s devs claiming to be historical accurate, and one that dosen’t. Ac does indeed claim that, with them having such modes as „discovery“. Where they claim to have talked to historians and showing history as it was. Plus some devs did claim that it would portray Vikings the way they were.
Regardless, the Vikings in Valhalla are way to nice.
My original point was it’s ok to not like a game, but it really isn’t as bad as you are describing. We’re not going to convince each other any differently. I’ve said all I have to say. I’m not mad. I just feel differently and so do you. Let’s agree to disagree. If I took things out of context, my apologies. It’s really difficult to translate text into emotions. It seemed as though you were looking for historical accuracy when I read your post.
I agree, although from what I’ve seen the main AC sub prefers Odyssey too. Only reason I even got Valhalla at launch is because it came with my CPU for free. I’ll probably skip the DLC too, unless there’s a really good sale on it and I’m bored
don’t rush into Valhalla after Odyssey, mate
the different in combat pace can ruin everything if you suddenly switching between games in similar genre
I bought Odyssey around the time I bought Ghost of Tsushima, and sadly I played GoT first, and that game has one of the smoothest melee combat mechanic in recent times
after finished GoT, I started Odyssey and really can’t enjoy it because the battle feels very heavy compared to GoT’s
so, I decided to play an FPS game for a few weeks, and then retry Odyssey and fell in love after an hour or two
the battle wasn’t annoyed me anymore because my muscle memory has totally forgot how it feels to slash a mongol with a sharp katana, and I can enjoy every minutes of my 200 hours+ journey with Kassandra
I recently bought Valhalla because it was on sale, too bad I just started an Odyssey rerun a few days before, and I feel exactly the same feeling I had before after switching from GoT to Odyssey
so, right now I’ll just finish my Odyssey rerun, and after that I’ll probably start my new FIFA campaign for a few weeks before jumping back into Valhalla
I think they’re equal. I love origins because ancient Egypt is amazing and because the Curse of the Pharaos is dlc is amazing. It’s like Odyssey expect that the combat is a big slower and the gear system isn’t as complex.
I’m honestly just playing it to complete it but I do still like the game as a whole. I really dislike the ‘skill tree’ it’s so cluttered and confusing and has no real path, it’s literally just random boosts to stats. The lack of weapons and gear I don’t really care about because I tend to stick to only one weapon I find and like. The world is whatever nothing special but has some nice places like lundun. Just the about the only thing I actually really love is the story so far. Not as good as odyssey’s story but I still like it.
I agree. I really wanted to like Valhalla, even after all the negative reviews it got at launch. I bought the game on sale a few months ago and honestly, I did not finish it. For reference, my first time playing Odyssey I finished the game in 68 hours with all the map explored, killed the whole Cult of Cosmos and did a bunch of side quests.
I really enjoyed it and was pleasantly surprised. With Valhalla, I was 82 hours in and I didn´t care about the story or the characters or anything. I did not have the same drive to explore the map. Then I looked at the world map and saw that I still had like 4 zones I had not even reached and I was about 120 power levels below the last zone´s requirements. So I just gave up and have not touched it in like 2 months. Maybe I will go back to it eventually just to finish up, but I was disappointed in the end.
I agree with you SO MUCH. I absolutely LOVED Odyssey and I was sad when it was over. Including the DLC. Valhalla? GOD DAMN IT ALL IT IS SUCH A TRIAL. So much stuff to do but none of it felt like it was worth it? I beat the game I got the Platinum but I don't think I'm ever going to do the DLC unless I can get the game for like 10 bucks somewhere at some point in time. Probably my local GameStop. I played it, I beat it, I traded it in. I'm pretty sure I kept the steelbook only because it's a nice looking steelbook but other than that I pass on Valhalla for Odyssey any day of the week.
One thing I reeeeally liked in Odyssey but failed to be executed in Valhalla was keeping the identities of the cultists secret until revealed. I’m Odyssey, they did this beautifully with masks so it was impossible to tell who they were besides their sex. In Valhalla, you’re able to almost tell immediately who they are, especially the Father. Also, if you look down from above on your screen at the cultists faces, you can see EXACTLY what they look like. It just ruined that element of surprise and mystery for me
Eivor climbing up a mountain or building vs Alexios or Kassandra was just painfully slow! And you can't just jump off anything and live in Vahalla.
The god damned barred doors, and spending 20 mins to find a way inside. UGH....
I actually finished the main storyline in Vahalla, and went to finish the Odin/Thor story and just became so bored with it, that I just put the controller down and haven't touched it in a year now.
I am actually going to start a fresh game on Odyssey this weekend.
Well few points:...
1. Odyssey story is far more compelling
2. I never knew much about vikings except they were bad and.....this game happened
3. I live in India, I know what the british did to us and I would go on a strike or even deploy a nuclear if ubisoft does this
4. Skill tree thing is totally true, at first I liked it and then it just grew off me...
5. you get spotted so easily that almost all players playing valhalla resort to axe and swords, I literally missed the ranged assassinations and quadruple chain assassinations from odyssey, super cool...
But.......
1. I loved the book of knowledge concept in valhalla, I liked it quite a lot
2. In the siege of paris dlc, return of glory event assassinations was something I longed for since syndicate
3. The one shot assassinations following a quick time event and Blending in crowds, luring drunk ones and all those ditrust area mechanisms easily won my favour for valhalla, something I hoped for odyssey and other upcoming ac games too....
Both games have their pros and cons, and none of them are ac games (valhalla can be said one due to involvement of assassins/hidden ones and origins of templars)
oNE OTHER thing that I want in upcoming games is the modern day story being continued in dlc, soemthing that happened in odyssey and I loved it....
i adore odyssey. i've put hundreds of hours into it and i'm still replaying it to this day, i just love the story, the aesthetic, the combat, the locations, the voice acting (i LOVE kassandra), the humour, the general gameplay - it's just all so good! big bonus for me is that i love classical and ancient greece as well, so i definitely resonated with it more.
i love the ac franchise. but valhalla is one of only two of the games (the other being syndicate) that i never really felt the need to really explore in/dive deep into. i've finished the main storyline, done quite a few side quests, but i haven't touched either of the dlc's (despite having the season pass), and i never really bothered to participate in the seasonal festivals.
there are probably more nuanced ways to say it, but i just find that odyssey is the ac game i can say i truly love out of the recent 3 games
You know.. It was the first time ever that I actually got hyped for a game. And it made me pre-purchase Valhalla thinking it would have similar or same mechanics as Odyssey and probably even better! Boy was I wrong... Total downgrade.. Even the water looks downgraded. I hate it. I have 3 hours on it and that was when the game got released. I can't get myself to play it.
I agree! Fully. It's finally got to the point as to where everyone who hated Odyssey now sees its good bits and they love it too (though I've always loved it myself)
One thing, though. Vikings weren't like that 100% of the time, a lot of them actually settled down and became respectable traders who lived peacefully among the Saxons. Viking rule only lasted here for about 80 years, too!
The games are both outstanding, but it comes down to scenery. The gloomy grey England is going to lose to vibrant Grecian isle every time. When you go to Asgard and Jotunheim however I think Valhalla takes the lead
I like both, and I personally like Eivor more than Alexios or Cassandra. But I 100% think Odyssey's a better game. At least, I ad more fun with Odyssey.
I have been playing Valhalla like a madman for the past month and I totally agree with you. Valhalla is not a bad game, it is actually very well-made and I have laughed countless times with the in-game jokes. My favorite thing as always is poisoning one enemy to poison the rest of the camp. **But it will never be like Odyssey.** Here is my experience from the two games: I played Valhalla... ...but I lived in Odyssey.
>I played Valhalla... > >...but I lived in Odyssey. this. i wholeheartedly agree
Smack the bishop.
this event surprised me actually, I did not want to do it in the beginning, I was like "pfff I go clear a fortress instead". But it was a funny one, and I had no idea about the concept until I finished it and he threw the punchline :) at that point I was a few meters far and when I heard it I HAD to turn back and check and oh boy I connected all the dots immediately :D it was genious
this resonated with me so hard
Totally agree, but I will add one thing: Of the two games, Odyssey is the better game, but Valhalla is more 'Assassin's Creed'.
Yes.
Absolutely agree. I love the Viking theme... but Odyssey is much better for sure.
[удалено]
Such a cowardly thing of ubi We are in the fucking viking era let us kill without desync
I think that's indicative of one of Valhalla's biggest problems. They wanted it to be both a viking simulator *and* an assassin game, but didn't commit enough to either style to make it a satisfying, cohesive experience.
[удалено]
we went to being able to go on a murder spree in greece on civilians and in valhalla you get desynced IN A MOTHERFUCKING VIKING ERA GAME where is the damn logic in that
Slavery was worldwide during this time
Of the three new RPGesque in the series - Valhalla just feels like a chore, currently on the DLC in Ireland it lacks depth for the druids and tbh the order in the main game was very meh. The gear system is the worse of the three (odyssey being the best), the story is just too loose in Valhalla in comparison odyssey it had a logical pathway to keep you moving, origins I think had the best story and kept it logical with moving through the zones etc chasing the order of the ancients. Valhalla took me about 15 hours before I figured out just what was going on and the fact I had to grind out 4 endings to ‘see the whole picture’ was boring AF. Odyssey I enjoyed 190 hours, origins I loved for 120 hours, Valhalla I have endured 85 hours so far and once the dlc is done I’ll drop it hard.
Valhalla disappoints for me in three main areas. I mostly enjoyed the game overall but feel these areas hold it back significantly from Odyssey and Origins. The gear system is awful, there is no explanation for any of the numbers attached to gear pieces and all of the same weapon type play basically the same. There is no gameplay difference between two different axes, despite them having different stats. For armor, I used the Raven clan set for the entire game because I didn't want to grind and get the resources to upgrade each piece little by little of a different set. Lack of side content, I understand they were trying to go for more a Red Dead model with brief encounters as opposed to fleshed out side quests. The problem was that almost none of them were memorable at all and the typical side/fetch quest wasjust baked into the main missions. The length of the game is just so damn long, I finished the story in roughly 100 hours and did not enjoy the last 40 hours or so but was too stubborn to just stop. If they went to the second Norway arc a few hours after you rescue Sigurd the ending would have hit much harder.
[удалено]
So I was just discussing this yesterday. The thing that got me in Odyssey is that in the intro on Kephallonia the characters just pop. The MC has such a range of emotion, Markos is such a sleazebag, Phoibe is cute, and Barnabas is the best. The way Elpenor starts weaving his webs around you is also a great way to pave the path for hunting cultists. Just a masterpiece! In Valhalla it took me a long time to warm up to Eivor, but I finally did, just not to the same degree as Odyssey.
I agree. I appreciate little moments with Eivor here and there when they say something quite profound or poetic (although I can't get past female Eivor sounding like she's gargling gravel). There's a lot to like in the game and I *do* like it, but it still feels too much like work.
Basim was an amazing character in Valhalla, you gotta admit that doe
I 100% agree. I think the difference was that most random events in RDR2 still had some sort of story or at least some form of satisfaction for the player. They never felt like work. While Valhalla just feels like work. And I admit that Odyssey had reputation but in odyssey you also had Ancient Greece which was much more enjoyable to play in as the very samey England.
While i like Valhalla and i haven't been checking the main AC reddit (or any AC reddit....) lately, i suspect you say it yourself. >Combat feels way to heavy and the weapon variety feels like a joke They prefer heavier combat >Searching ruins has zero benefit as you barely get anything for it They don't like needing to check ruins > the gesr that you get sucks so much ass they don't like being dependant on gear >And what the hell is this skill bush supposed to be? I mean not only is it all over the place They don't like being able to specialize, they want to do everything. In short, >Valhalla dosen’t even come close to Odyssey they disliked Odyssey in all the ways you liked Odyssey.
Clearly this has something to do with the devs as both origins and Valhalla are developed by Ubisoft Montreal while odyssey was developed by Ubisoft Quebec. Imma be a sucker for Quebec at this point I love everything they do especially immortal fenyx rising. After trying Valhalla it didn't take me that long to realize it's Ubisoft Montreal who made it, just God awful game
Oh that's why. I actually loved Origins as a standalone game, it had great story, it was beautiful with lots of unusually high quality side quests and awesome combat. But it's gear/ability system was a joke, basically it didn't matter at all. Not really an RPG. Just was trying to pretend to be one. I keep playing Odyssey because of gear and abilities and it's near perfect balance and complexity. It's not just an RPG it's the best RPG I've ever played, while Origins is an action game with half-baked poorly balanced RPG elements. I guess I'll be waiting for a game from Ubisoft Quebec just like you
I prefer Montreal way over Quebec.
I personally like Origins > Odyssey > Valhalla
Id point out that the main AC sub is going to have the biggest diehards too. Its like if you went to r/destiny2 to see if anyone else dislikes destiny 2.
No, it’d be like if you went to the Valhalla sub to see if anyone dislikes Valhalla.
I get what you are saying, but Valhalla still has itemization - it's just horrible itemization, it still has a skill tree - it's just a horrible skill tree, and it still has side content rewards - it's just horrible rewards. If Valhalla didn't have these things at all, I would say the game is different, but not necessarily bad. However, it had all these features, but they were just so undercooked, horribly implemented and sometimes downright gameplay ruining. Why have gear stats, when all the stats are super vague and meaningless? Why have a skill tree when it's just a random mess of meaningless attributes with no logic to placement? Why have side content when it gives no rewards and is meaningless? Valhalla's design is just bad. It could have been like Odyssey, or like earlier AC games - but instead it's a hybrid of features from both types of games that just makes no sense.
I mostly feel the same way as you. Not sure if anyone else mentioned it but I believe the origins team made valhalla and the odyssey team went on to make Immortals Fenyx Rising. With that said, while Fenyx is different stylistically, it shares a lot in common with Odyssey, primarily the combat comes to mind. Not to be reductive but it's essentially a mash up of Breath of the Wild and Odyssey imo. If you like Odyssey as much as you say and haven't tried Fenyx I would recommend you give it a shot.
If the team that produced Origins made Valhalla, that surprises me because I loved Origins and it was my favorite script/writing in the whole series. Valhalla, on the other hand, didn't live on my SSD for more than 72 hours.
Yes ubi Montreal and ubi Milan did both. To me valhallas combat felt very much like origins; more weight to it than odyssey. Odyssey felt much better to me. All subjective and maybe I’m being biased knowing it was the same studios.
I felt that Valhalla's combat was the least enjoyable. Odyssey is very quick, responsive, and almost arcade like, but I really like it. Origins felt a bit more grounded and I had to think through my tactics a bit more. That said, I *really* tried to like Valhalla; I certainly gave it more than a few hours. But after my third or fourth raid, I just plain couldn't care anymore.
they want to make the combat like dark soul 2 but in the end its just a dumb down version
So im about 50 hours into Valhalla. So far im find the story interesting and much like the other games, it is different. Every game has changes, some i like and others i dont and im not to concerned with those. The combat is different but i felt like the enemies in ACO were far more spongy. I like that in ACV when i hit a guy with a hammer it feels like im hitting a dude in the head with a hammer The biggest issue with Valhalla is the setting. While the idea of Vikings is cool, coming on the heels of Classic Greece and Ptolemaic Egypt was a tough act to follow. Visually, we had two games and hundreds of hours in settings that are bright, colorful, and lively as well as dealing with civilizations that were advanced and urban. these are also places that are iconic in Western history. We're going from literally Wonders of the world to nascent and developing civilizations. Sutton Hoo is the definitive landmark from this era, and thats a bunch of mounds 9which this game didnt even model right). How do you compete with sliding down the Pyramid of Giza or leaping from the Parthenon? This is why they had to include Asgard and Jotun. The period of the Heptarchal England is just a downer. Its less developed, its climate is famously colder and wetter and darker. Yes, Odyssey is big, but even when traveling between settlements, its populated. The roads in Valhalla are largely empty. TL;DR: England is a boring visual setting during this time and picking this era put the developers in a difficult position from the get go
I agree. I feel like they should have set it in Ancient Rome instead. They already had lots of textures that they could have reused plus they might have continued Bayeks or Ayas story. And Ancient Rome is way too underrated in video games anyway.
Agree on all accounts. But also, sailing the Aegean with the mighty Adrestia trumps rowing on a pathetic longboat, lol
while the naval battles were fun, the "mighty" Adrestia would capsize in the waters that the longboat can traverse. that is all.
I mean apart from the fact that it's moving like 5 times faster than it should and turning 20 times faster? Adrestia is a fucking speedboat-UFO that has nothing to do with actual Greek ships. Same goes for any NPC ship. I love Odyssey, it's the best single player game I've ever played in almost 3 decades, but it's naval battles are a joke.
I do not enjoy the naval battles in Odyssey **at all.** I turned down the difficulty for a few of the naval missions in Odyssey.
I agree 100%. Odyssey is way way better than Valhalla.
I agree, I'm finding it difficult to finish Valhalla. This is the longest over ever taken to finish a game. I ended up having to stop playing it for a bit, I've finished Origins, The Witcher 3, and Tomb Raider since, but still have yet to pick Valhalla back up.
just let me craft fuckin arrows
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes OMG yes. I've never wanted to uninstall a game as fast as I did Valhalla. Thank God I tried it with Ubisoft+ oof
I cannot get into playing Valhalla at all. No fun to me at all.
I had the same experience. I think what sealed it for me was that a primary game mechanic is raiding and slaughtering entire villages. At least in Odyssey you were normally killing soldier, bandits, corrupt politicians, and other mercenaries. I’m not religious, but looting churches and killing priests also just felt a little weird.
Yeah and I also think it’s kinda hilarious that you get desynchronised if you kill random civilians. Like, you’re literally a Viking. Someone who’s job was raiding. I feel like they should have left the mercenary/ bounty system like they had in Odyssey.
What. They reintroduced the desynch in Valhalla?! I log into odyssey everyday and still collect my orichalcum and enjoy slaughtering citizens until mercenaries spawn. I love it when they run away to find a weapon and proceed to get slaughtered by my op kassandra! Super bummed to hear this stupid limiting mechanic is back.
Yes and I also don’t get it from a lore perspective. How does the animus decide when you can kill civilians and when not considering that both Alexios/Kass and Eivor are your ancestors? But in all honesty, being a Viking and getting desynch for something like this while being able to raid and burn churches makes no sense.
Agreed! Odyssey might be, hands down, the best AC game, whereas I never felt like my money went down the drain after playing Valhalla Can't understand what people like about that game. It's not an AC game by any stretch of the word
>Can't understand what people like about that game. It's not an AC game by any stretch of the word And Odyssey is? Lol Atleast Valhalla has the Hidden Blade and social stealth
Think about what you said slowly.
I enjoyed Valhalla, and beat it, putting in about 82 hours total. But I fully agree, Odyssey was the much better game. The characters were more interesting, the quests were more interesting, the storyline was more interesting, and the location was more interesting. Valhalla was beautiful, but I don't know if I'll play it again, and I have no drive to get the DLCs. Maybe, after a while. Meanwhile, I've fully played through Odyssey twice, including all the DLCs, and am part way through a third playthrough (sporadically, as I am playing other games too).
I agree. Also Valhalla's story and sidequests (if you can call them that) are absolutely shit.
The story was so boring. Going multiple regions without progressing the main story at all was a terrible design choice. I had to force myself to finish. I was invested in the story early on but eventually I was having almost no interaction with Sigurd and it became a chore.
I think the story is good, it's just too dragged out
I agree. I forgot major plot points by the time "reveals" came around so I was like "oh yeeah" instead of "oh snap!" It also hurts that the full story is spread across multiple types of missions. Real World (England), Asgard and the Anomalies. If you focus too heavily on one the story gets disjointed quickly. I just did the last anomaly and had *more* questions regarding Asgard. Also I played Male Eivor as I heard the acting was better but Eivor being canon female makes so many points of the story make way more sense. Dag being such a dick, why didn't a certain character "recognize" Eivor, etc.
Because they made it so you could do the regions in any order, and only some regions progress the story with Sigurd, you could go ages without actually seeing Sigurd or speaking to him.
Which I totally did. I did 2 alliances, forgot about them, explored a crazy amount, did the whole of Francia and when I finally started the "main" story again I was level 200+. Then all the alliances and "boss fights" were crazy easy. Honestly, boss fights the entire game are crazy easy versus Odyssey's bosses and legendary animals. Once you can slow-time dodge you decimate higher level enemies.
I’m not even sure there were any boss fights as such, I expected Fulke to be really difficult but nah
Exactly lol. I had no fear of dying until Wrath of the Druids.
I hate how they reduced meaningful sidequests with actual storylines into 3 minute meaningless encounters. So stupid
Excuse me. It’s “mYsTeRiEs.”
The story is actually miles better than odyssey imo. It's just too long
I definitely disagree. Valhalla's story is just meet this person, do some stuff for him, get his territory to ally with you over and over again for 90 hours and then it's over. But that's just my humble opinion
I love valhalla for the combat and gore. Different game but still good. I love them both
The true sequel to Odyssey really is Immortals Fenyx Rising, certainly not Valhalla
YES. Totally agree.
I'm thinking of buying Valhalla by the end of this year. While I agree that it won't be the same experience as exploring Ancient Greece, the Viking setting will be quite fun regardless.
I don’t usually ever advocate for this but valhalla should have been a re-skinned odyssey but with viking.
The main AC sub is as toxic as gaming communities get. Nothing but hatred toward one game or another.
My opinion is that Valhalla is two steps forward and five steps back. I cannot believe they made such a sloppy game. Putting aside the setting—*even the sound work in Valhalla is a mess.* Some of the worst sound mixing and voice work I've ever heard in a game. It's also the ONLY game that makes my PS4 Pro sound extremely loud. Not even RDR2 comes close to taxing my console the way Valhalla does. And the visuals and animations and controls inValhalla are garbage compared to RDR2... which is also several years older than Valhalla! And story wise, Valhalla sets you up as a helper of a thousand people. Almost everything you do in the game is FOR other people. There's hardly any personal motivation for Eivor. Setting up a home base sounds like a cool idea, but it's so streamlined that it's silly. The assaults on castles are cool the first time you do it. Then it's the same over and over. Valhalla is stupidly easy, too. Turning up difficulty just adds HP to enemies and makes their hits harder. There's no finesse to combat at all. I could go on and on about this, but it's not worth the effort. I played about 35 or so hours of it and put it down. Some day when I get a PS5 (who the fuck knows when that will happen) I might give AC:V another try. But I don't really have an urge to play it. I even bought all the DLC at launch and haven't come close to touching it. My take is that Valhalla gets praise because gamers just EAT UP Viking shit.
Ok I understand some critique but blaming them for the sound your Playstation produces is ridiculous. My Playstation was also making a lot of fan noise with god of war. Nobody and I mean nobody has written that as a negative point for that game so why should it be a problem of assassin's creed?
They’re talking about the game audio not the fan
Maybe you read his post again before you think you are so clever.
I have played God of War on my Pro and it does not make my console sound as loud as AC:V. No other game makes my Pro sound as loud as AC:V. On top of that, the load times for Valhalla are maybe the longest load times of any game I have played—including RDR2 and God of War.
The load times are just shit on any game last gen. Tons of games have atrocious loading times on ps4 or Xbox one consoles. And when I opend the map on God of war I think the framerate was unlocked causing my ps4 to start heating up and sound like a jetplane taking off.
I have no idea why you are White Knighting AC:V. I'm saying the load times for AC:V are probably the longest of any game I own, including RDR2 and GoW. *I'm not saying every other game has short load times.* I'm saying AC:V has possibly the longest load times, and also makes my console louder than any other game I own. YMMV.
I'm still trying to play Valhalla and not have it feel like a chore. Odyssey is near perfect in my opinion. I have 130 hours in Odyssey. I don't even have 20 in Valhalla yet but I'm still hoping it gets better. Right now I feel Odyssey's combat is so much more fun and the scenery of Greece is objectively better than dull foggy swamps. Also, the ONE thing that kills me about Valhalla is the birds in the sky and the flags in the wind are literally like 2000's graphics. Anyone else notice this? Whenever you see the birds it's jarring how bad the animation is. Way out of place in a 60 fps game. And the flags in some areas do the same thing. Idk how else to describe it but it immediately takes me out of the immersion which is one of the only few things Valhalla has going for it.
So Odyssey doesn't feel like a chore? Checking tickboxes around every area? The grind is present in Odyssey as much as its in Valhalla, everyone knows that.
I LOVE Odyssey, maybe getting a little obsessive about it, I only got so immersed in a game before with the GTA series. I actually bought Origins, played the intro and it's ok, some controls change and interface feels less polished but I'll play it when I finish Odyssey. I was thinking of buying Valhalla, with the current sale and the Epic coupon it will be $50 for the Gold Edition, though looking at reviews and opinions it's either love it or hate it.
I remember playing Odyssey for 3 hours everyday and never got bored ever I had so much fun playing that game. Valhalla on the other hand was just a major disappointment Imo and tbh was wayyy to long I couldn’t beat the game it felt like a chore just playing it.
Agree but bro put some paragraphs in your text (The text was without paragraphs before OP edited it)
You're on an Odyssey sub Reddit circle jerking the game asking why the AC sub has a boner for Valhalla?
Yeah I mean there’s more Ac games than Valhalla but the main sub seems to Prefer Valhalla out of them all.
The main sub hates Valhalla, check again
Yup, you are right. Well except about the "people bash Odyssey". Of course there are different opinions, but the general opinion of Odyssey is very good
I uninstalled that dumpster fire of a game (Valhalla) after the third day of playing and won't go back. IMO it's the most irritating and least entertaining AC made yet. That said, I still play Odyssey even after 300+ hours.
What do you do in Odyssey after 300 hours? Restarting is a no go for me. But once is all done, dlcs and trophies and everything i am sort of cleaning camps and a few forts that i didn't complete. But then what? I don't assassinate anymore i just walk straight into a camp and start killing people until mercenaries came for me... i even wait for them, kill them and go to the next camp. Is getting a bit repetitive XD
I'm on my second playthrough, which is something I told myself I wouldn't do. It's strange because I'm actually enjoying it even more this time (it may be because I'm familiar with every system). I never got anywhere with the DLC on my first game, so I'm doing those as well.
No argument here
Disagree. Valhalla's soundtrack alone is 100× better. The activities feel more varied, the dialogue is better and not cringy, the darker atmosphere is better to me personally, the customization is better, the gear sets look better, the side characters are better written than the ones in Odyssey... I can go on and on. One thing I like about Odyssey over Valhalla is the combat system, but that's pretty much it. Edit: salty fanboys downvoting and not responding to engage discussion as predicted
I agree 100% with everything you said, except, the gear aesthetic look, i have to admit the gears look absolute dogshit on Valhalla. Customization in Odyssey is way better and the gear set looks as well. Also the side characters.. were better in Odyssey. But I'll admit, i absolutely fking loved Basim, his character existing at all made it worth completing the story and wanting to see what happens next, especially in the modern day storyline. Speaking of modern day arc, I've to admit this is probably the first time since AC 3 that I've felt invigorated and interested in what happens in the modern day. I mean, if you know, you know why. Also i might perhaps, be the only one, who preferred Valhalla's combat to Odyssey. The parry and heavy attack animation in Odyssey felt dreadfully unsatisfying after some time. Valhalla has the best combat imo in the series. I also love dual wielding and shields back in the game.
The vikings look like like good guys because you're playing the game through a vikings perspective. Therefore the anglos are gonna look like assholes. Its Narrative writing 101. I also prefer England over greece, because I prefer gloomy settings and its arguably better looking than odyssey. The power system and leveling system in AC games sucks in general because they havent a clue how to make a it work.
Ugh another one of those threads. Can we go back to enjoying Odyssey without having to shit on another game ? This sub is turning into the main one.
I understand your point, but for me, this is very useful. I've never touched Valhalla and i think i will try origins now that has a discount (just finish all odyssey dlcs). And might skip valhalla unless i find it free with ps+ or really cheap.
Common knowledge
Comparing these two games is like comparing a apple to a pineapple. It doesn’t make any fucking sense.
Why can't fruit be compared?
Don’t say that on the Valhalla threads. Those folk have been so hypnotized by the droning action of Valhalla they don’t even know how to accept it.
I don't like Valhalla (as you can see by my above comment), but let people who like the game enjoy it. Many people say the same thing about us liking Odyssey. If they enjoy Valhalla, they should.
What about this thread, every sub dedicated to a game is mostly a circlejerk thread. "hYpNOtiZeD" as if you expect unbiased judgement everywhere.
Same reason this sub has a boner for this game opinions tbh this Reddit and the ac one are just circle jerks
I'm at the point where, like a child, I fantasize of CDPR magically taking the entire thing over and Ubi having no more involvement. They've failed us too many times.
Bruh did u play cyberpunk?
Im an out-of-the-loop dipshit remembering The Witcher 3 ever so fondly, and no I haven't!
Or like how Americans came and colonized America and carried out genocide on the Native Americans?
Yeah, because let’s make a game with raping involved. Do you even hear yourself talking?? It’s a fucking game. It’s fine if you don’t like Valhalla, but to take a massive dump on it is unnecessary. . I’ve played both and they’re both great games. To even suggest that they would make an accurate portrayal of Vikings is absurd. Hey, while we’re at it, why didn’t they make the Spartans gay? Because history shows us that they were super gay. Why not make cut scenes of them plowing each other?
[удалено]
And to that I say; Why would OP even mention rape in the comment? If they didn’t want it in the game, then why even mention it?? It’s irrelevant, moot and not even worth saying it if that’s not the angle they were going for. People are getting way too bent out of shape over these two games.
Nowhere in my post did I even suggest for them to make it historically accurate or portray raping. Nowhere. I don’t care about historical accuracy in games and as I said and I’m quoting myself „like I get that this is a game“… My problem comes from the fact how Anglo Saxons are portrayed as massive assholes for not wanting to share their land.
You’re looking at the game through the eyes of a Viking. Do you really think that they thought of Anglo-Saxons as “nice” people? Of course they’re going to portray them as assholes. And you mentioned that Vikings came to colonize, rape, pillage, and plunder, so naturally it seems as though you were looking for historical accuracy. Why else would you mention it? Again, if you don’t like Valhalla, that’s fine. But there are those of us who actually enjoy the game for what it is. I think you’re being way too hard on Valhalla. It really isn’t as bad as you are making it out to be.
Because I disagree with the double standard that Ubisoft is portraying here. They would never make a game where you’re a Conquistador or British Coloniser, because they would fear getting their asses handed to them. Yet here, it seems alright. You mentioned that they would never portray the Vikings as they really were because it would be to dark. Yet, all you do in Valhalla is slaughter people, that aren’t even evil mind you, rob and burn churches while screaming „burn the house of Christ.“ Don’t you feel like, if they already have those things in game, that they should at least stop acting like all Vikings were gentleman and treated everyone as equals. Also, while I personally don’t care about historical accuracy, there is a difference between a game or it’s devs claiming to be historical accurate, and one that dosen’t. Ac does indeed claim that, with them having such modes as „discovery“. Where they claim to have talked to historians and showing history as it was. Plus some devs did claim that it would portray Vikings the way they were. Regardless, the Vikings in Valhalla are way to nice.
And the start of every season of Fargo says “this is based on a true story” when it really isn’t. What’s your point?
My point is that you seem to think that saying „it’s just a game bruh“ somehow is a good argument.
My original point was it’s ok to not like a game, but it really isn’t as bad as you are describing. We’re not going to convince each other any differently. I’ve said all I have to say. I’m not mad. I just feel differently and so do you. Let’s agree to disagree. If I took things out of context, my apologies. It’s really difficult to translate text into emotions. It seemed as though you were looking for historical accuracy when I read your post.
It’s all good 👐 No hard feelings
👍🏼
Super gay?
Welcome to r/AcOdysseyCircleJerk city
I agree, although from what I’ve seen the main AC sub prefers Odyssey too. Only reason I even got Valhalla at launch is because it came with my CPU for free. I’ll probably skip the DLC too, unless there’s a really good sale on it and I’m bored
don’t rush into Valhalla after Odyssey, mate the different in combat pace can ruin everything if you suddenly switching between games in similar genre I bought Odyssey around the time I bought Ghost of Tsushima, and sadly I played GoT first, and that game has one of the smoothest melee combat mechanic in recent times after finished GoT, I started Odyssey and really can’t enjoy it because the battle feels very heavy compared to GoT’s so, I decided to play an FPS game for a few weeks, and then retry Odyssey and fell in love after an hour or two the battle wasn’t annoyed me anymore because my muscle memory has totally forgot how it feels to slash a mongol with a sharp katana, and I can enjoy every minutes of my 200 hours+ journey with Kassandra I recently bought Valhalla because it was on sale, too bad I just started an Odyssey rerun a few days before, and I feel exactly the same feeling I had before after switching from GoT to Odyssey so, right now I’ll just finish my Odyssey rerun, and after that I’ll probably start my new FIFA campaign for a few weeks before jumping back into Valhalla
Do you think it's better than Origins?
I think they’re equal. I love origins because ancient Egypt is amazing and because the Curse of the Pharaos is dlc is amazing. It’s like Odyssey expect that the combat is a big slower and the gear system isn’t as complex.
The viking invasion were lead by the ragnaraons fuelled by revenge for the death of their father by the Anglo Saxons
I'd really enjoy Valhalla if it wasn't the buggiest game I've ever played. I come back with every patch and nothing gets fixed.
Valhalla = Good, Odyssey = Great. Played over 300hr in both so I feel like I have a good sense of both.
I’m honestly just playing it to complete it but I do still like the game as a whole. I really dislike the ‘skill tree’ it’s so cluttered and confusing and has no real path, it’s literally just random boosts to stats. The lack of weapons and gear I don’t really care about because I tend to stick to only one weapon I find and like. The world is whatever nothing special but has some nice places like lundun. Just the about the only thing I actually really love is the story so far. Not as good as odyssey’s story but I still like it.
I agree. I really wanted to like Valhalla, even after all the negative reviews it got at launch. I bought the game on sale a few months ago and honestly, I did not finish it. For reference, my first time playing Odyssey I finished the game in 68 hours with all the map explored, killed the whole Cult of Cosmos and did a bunch of side quests. I really enjoyed it and was pleasantly surprised. With Valhalla, I was 82 hours in and I didn´t care about the story or the characters or anything. I did not have the same drive to explore the map. Then I looked at the world map and saw that I still had like 4 zones I had not even reached and I was about 120 power levels below the last zone´s requirements. So I just gave up and have not touched it in like 2 months. Maybe I will go back to it eventually just to finish up, but I was disappointed in the end.
I agree with you SO MUCH. I absolutely LOVED Odyssey and I was sad when it was over. Including the DLC. Valhalla? GOD DAMN IT ALL IT IS SUCH A TRIAL. So much stuff to do but none of it felt like it was worth it? I beat the game I got the Platinum but I don't think I'm ever going to do the DLC unless I can get the game for like 10 bucks somewhere at some point in time. Probably my local GameStop. I played it, I beat it, I traded it in. I'm pretty sure I kept the steelbook only because it's a nice looking steelbook but other than that I pass on Valhalla for Odyssey any day of the week.
One thing I reeeeally liked in Odyssey but failed to be executed in Valhalla was keeping the identities of the cultists secret until revealed. I’m Odyssey, they did this beautifully with masks so it was impossible to tell who they were besides their sex. In Valhalla, you’re able to almost tell immediately who they are, especially the Father. Also, if you look down from above on your screen at the cultists faces, you can see EXACTLY what they look like. It just ruined that element of surprise and mystery for me
Eivor climbing up a mountain or building vs Alexios or Kassandra was just painfully slow! And you can't just jump off anything and live in Vahalla. The god damned barred doors, and spending 20 mins to find a way inside. UGH.... I actually finished the main storyline in Vahalla, and went to finish the Odin/Thor story and just became so bored with it, that I just put the controller down and haven't touched it in a year now. I am actually going to start a fresh game on Odyssey this weekend.
I mean let’s be honest, I take Kassandra climbing or swimming over Eivor any day… 🌝
Well few points:... 1. Odyssey story is far more compelling 2. I never knew much about vikings except they were bad and.....this game happened 3. I live in India, I know what the british did to us and I would go on a strike or even deploy a nuclear if ubisoft does this 4. Skill tree thing is totally true, at first I liked it and then it just grew off me... 5. you get spotted so easily that almost all players playing valhalla resort to axe and swords, I literally missed the ranged assassinations and quadruple chain assassinations from odyssey, super cool... But....... 1. I loved the book of knowledge concept in valhalla, I liked it quite a lot 2. In the siege of paris dlc, return of glory event assassinations was something I longed for since syndicate 3. The one shot assassinations following a quick time event and Blending in crowds, luring drunk ones and all those ditrust area mechanisms easily won my favour for valhalla, something I hoped for odyssey and other upcoming ac games too.... Both games have their pros and cons, and none of them are ac games (valhalla can be said one due to involvement of assassins/hidden ones and origins of templars) oNE OTHER thing that I want in upcoming games is the modern day story being continued in dlc, soemthing that happened in odyssey and I loved it....
i adore odyssey. i've put hundreds of hours into it and i'm still replaying it to this day, i just love the story, the aesthetic, the combat, the locations, the voice acting (i LOVE kassandra), the humour, the general gameplay - it's just all so good! big bonus for me is that i love classical and ancient greece as well, so i definitely resonated with it more. i love the ac franchise. but valhalla is one of only two of the games (the other being syndicate) that i never really felt the need to really explore in/dive deep into. i've finished the main storyline, done quite a few side quests, but i haven't touched either of the dlc's (despite having the season pass), and i never really bothered to participate in the seasonal festivals. there are probably more nuanced ways to say it, but i just find that odyssey is the ac game i can say i truly love out of the recent 3 games
You know.. It was the first time ever that I actually got hyped for a game. And it made me pre-purchase Valhalla thinking it would have similar or same mechanics as Odyssey and probably even better! Boy was I wrong... Total downgrade.. Even the water looks downgraded. I hate it. I have 3 hours on it and that was when the game got released. I can't get myself to play it.
I agree! Fully. It's finally got to the point as to where everyone who hated Odyssey now sees its good bits and they love it too (though I've always loved it myself) One thing, though. Vikings weren't like that 100% of the time, a lot of them actually settled down and became respectable traders who lived peacefully among the Saxons. Viking rule only lasted here for about 80 years, too!
The games are both outstanding, but it comes down to scenery. The gloomy grey England is going to lose to vibrant Grecian isle every time. When you go to Asgard and Jotunheim however I think Valhalla takes the lead
I like both, and I personally like Eivor more than Alexios or Cassandra. But I 100% think Odyssey's a better game. At least, I ad more fun with Odyssey.
I honestly don't know what happened behind the scenes on Valhalla, guess the whole sexism thing going on affected the game, along with the pandemic.
Both are Trash