Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

Exposed said:
It's like they roll a dice to see what year it lands on now. The "Assassin's Creed" timeline doesn't even make sense anymore, and it hasn't been a true "Assassin's Creed" game in a while (Templars storyline).
Click to expand...
I feel like that's a bit unfair. The Ass Creed games have always been about exploring history and we know that Templars have persisted to the modern day so there are likely many of them across many settings and time periods.

I feel like I'm probably one of the few gamers that is not tired of the franchise. I've played them all and there have been ups (AC2) and downs (AC3) but most of them were a great time. Odyssey was huge and fun and I really enjoyed playing it for like 80hrs, despite the fact that it's quite a different beast than the early games.

Perhaps they'll find a middle ground between the tight stealth / assassination components of AC2 and the broad exploration rpg style of AC:Odyssey. I'm still excited about anything along that scale, although I suspect it will be closer to the latter.

I'm looking forward to seeing the gameplay of this one.
 
Getting there being able to choose male or female but if I can’t select non gender specific, colour, religion, belief system then it’s just not PC enough for me and I think we should boycott all games where they haven’t got these options /sigh.
 
The game will be available through a Uplay+ subscription at launch so no real need to buy it outright unless it's going to take you many months to complete. Supposedly the Ultimate edition will be on there too.

That's probably the way I'll go and then buy it much later when it's cheap.
 
All ubisoft games are epic or uplay exclusive for a while now, so this will be no diferent.

I'll just get the standard edition, and buy the season pass when it's on sale.
 
nutcrackr said:
I feel like that's a bit unfair. The Ass Creed games have always been about exploring history and we know that Templars have persisted to the modern day so there are likely many of them across many settings and time periods.

I feel like I'm probably one of the few gamers that is not tired of the franchise. I've played them all and there have been ups (AC2) and downs (AC3) but most of them were a great time. Odyssey was huge and fun and I really enjoyed playing it for like 80hrs, despite the fact that it's quite a different beast than the early games.

Perhaps they'll find a middle ground between the tight stealth / assassination components of AC2 and the broad exploration rpg style of AC:Odyssey. I'm still excited about anything along that scale, although I suspect it will be closer to the latter.

I'm looking forward to seeing the gameplay of this one.
Click to expand...




Not saying the games aren't good, they games ARE good... but is it really Assassin's Creed anymore other than name? What happened is what was "Assassin's Creed" evolved into something else entirely. It allowed them to explore new timelines, eras, and gameplay. But it isn't really Assassin's Creed anymore and they didn't want to change the name (because the name itself alone is responsible for some of the recognition/success).

It's not even a templar story anymore (no templars existed during the Viking raids). If it's just a story of Assassinations now, that's fine. But "Origins" was supposed to be the "origins" story of the Assassins group but they kept going back in time because the settings were cool. So now it's not even a story about the Assassin's anymore, it's about assassinations. I'm not even sure how this fits into Vikings because Vikings are front line warriors and do not fight with stealth, etc.. They kill people by literally running to them and killing them, not "assassinating" them. It seems this would be another case where the setting was much more cooler than the logic of the series so they ran with it.

I am not joking when I say there will be an Assassin's Creed "Primal" one day. It may even be a good game. But would it still be an Assassins Creed game? Don't you think the name should have been changed?
 
I agree with what you're saying Exposed, for the most part.

The early games had more story involved. You'd constantly wake up in the present time and have to run about, or have dialogue with characters, or read computers and information to get more back story. The first one was a bit light, but they picked up a little after that. Black Flag was pretty good, IMO.

However, Unity and some of the others seemed like they didn't link it to the present timeline at all. Some of the games were just simply stories of different assassins in different time periods, though not linked to the other games at all. They were decently fun/entertaining, but I was a bit disappointed that the main story was getting dropped for basically individual tales from different characters.

I still enjoy the hell out of them, and I think Origins tied in the start of it all quite nicely. But they really feel a bit disconnected from the original games and plot. Origins had a LITTLE bit of that in it, but if you didn't go out of your way looking...I don't think you'd ever see it.
 
I'm sure I'll play it time when it gets cheap. I've played all the others (just about finished Syndicate as the last one) but I've never been that excited by them. They always seem good enough but also could have been so much more. Ubisoft obviously have a business model that works for them but I do wish they would make fewer but better games.
 
I love these games. I don’t mind the crazy stories either. Odyssey and Origins both were absolutely fantastic. I have played all of them with the exception of side scrollers and never completed the Liberation game.

This one seems like a system seller for PS5 and XsX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top