Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

Exposed said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't feel the bigger arc of the Assassin's Creed games has been assassinations or the Assassin and Templar organisations. The themes of all Assassin's Creed games have remained the same: a society of freedom and chaos, versus a society of control and order. That theme is universal enough that it doesn't matter what the advocators of either are called, and the lore of the gods and artifacts means timelines don't matter either.

Of course the series has evolved far beyond what Ubisoft envisioned circa 2004-2007, when development on the first game was underway. Heck, Assassin's Creed originally came forth from prototypes under the Prince of Persia flag.
 
twonha said:
I don't feel the bigger arc of the Assassin's Creed games has been assassinations or the Assassin and Templar organisations. The themes of all Assassin's Creed games have remained the same: a society of freedom and chaos, versus a society of control and order. That theme is universal enough that it doesn't matter what the advocators of either are called, and the lore of the gods and artifacts means timelines don't matter either.

Of course the series has evolved far beyond what Ubisoft envisioned circa 2004-2007, when development on the first game was underway. Heck, Assassin's Creed originally came forth from prototypes under the Prince of Persia flag.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
The only ass creed game to interest me was Odyssy, however I was put off but the two ladies going back in time and role playing as the man/woman that went through the time period. When I first saw that I was thinking "da fuq? WHY??!?!" and immediately felt that pulled away from any immersion.

Why didn't they just start it in the time period and leave it at that? What's the point of some random ladies looking back in time? I don't know if the other ass creed games were like that, but that is a bad plot decision imho.
 
xCLAVEx said:
The only ass creed game to interest me was Odyssy, however I was put off but the two ladies going back in time and role playing as the man/woman that went through the time period. When I first saw that I was thinking "da fuq? WHY??!?!" and immediately felt that pulled away from any immersion.

Why didn't they just start it in the time period and leave it at that? What's the point of some random ladies looking back in time? I don't know if the other ass creed games were like that, but that is a bad plot decision imho.
Click to expand...

That's the overarching story of the whole series. People in the future/current times looking back at the past to find out secrets/ information. Been that way since the first game.
 
xCLAVEx said:
The only ass creed game to interest me was Odyssy, however I was put off but the two ladies going back in time and role playing as the man/woman that went through the time period. When I first saw that I was thinking "da fuq? WHY??!?!" and immediately felt that pulled away from any immersion.

Why didn't they just start it in the time period and leave it at that? What's the point of some random ladies looking back in time? I don't know if the other ass creed games were like that, but that is a bad plot decision imho.
Click to expand...

Its done far better in previous game. The first three and black flag do it quite well. The games have always been two stories in one. The few where it doesnt do it are actually worse for it. The problem is you encounted it first in a game it was poorly done in. I think there is like 3 scenes, and they are all tiny and barely add anything to the story.
 
Exposed said:
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?
Click to expand...
I won't deny that a major driving force of the series is to go somewhere different and cool, but the series has injected a hidden conflict into history via the two fictional organizations (Templars and Ass Order). So saying there were no Templars in Viking times is like saying there was no Ezio in the 15th century. It is basically alternate history mixed with sci-fi. As twonha says, I think the main themes are more about control versus freedom, which was nice to see from the other side in Rogue.

It is more about the assassinations than being part of a secret society, at least in the most recent games, but this one sounds like it's going back. As for how Vikings fit in with stealth, I feel like you can do both. Although I think in general Ubisoft want players to feel like badasses and some won't do much stealth.
 
Syndicate was the last AC game which stayed true to the original 'assassination' gameplay of the series. The ones which come after (Origins/Odyssey) are closer to "Witcher lite" games, where it's less about stealth assassinations and more about open world gameplay with rpg style leveling and hundreds of minor quests scattered around each zone.

The series is still awesome so I'm looking foward to this - the game worlds might feel a bit bloated now but are still high quality throughout and the tech behind the games is still phenomenal.
 
I never liked the ac games, found most of them crap and ac 3 combat system was so clunky when it came out, it put me off any other ac games so never bothered with any of them until Odyssey was $15 on PlayStation store. Now I also bought origins which was also on special for $15 this week even before completing odyssey as I have been enjoying it so much. If Valhalla is anything like odyssey it’s a certain purchase for me
 
I just hope the game is either more varied, or smaller than Oddyssey. The game is too ****ing big.
 
This is being called a "Game-Play trailer", but I see zero game-play and zero hud so I call utter BS. Although it could very well be real-time in engine footage.

[yt]WgUtoX7ue7Q[/yt]
 
So no gameplay there. I know what to expect anyway and Im still going to get it. Bu they shouldnt be calling it gameplay if there is no gameplay.
 
its like people dont realise its an ubisoft title... it wont look anything like that when it releases... hasnt every single ubisoft title in the last 15 been downgraded at release?
 
theshadowcult said:
its like people dont realise its an ubisoft title... it wont look anything like that when it releases... hasnt every single ubisoft title in the last 15 been downgraded at release?
Click to expand...

Yep! Reminds of Watch Dogs when they actually showed in game footage which was far from what we ended up. Now they are taking it to the next level by calling it a gameplay trailer, showing us nothing but cut scenes.

I’m convinced they think we are ****ing idiots.


I mean, this sort of **** works on KAC but not the rest of us!
 
Last edited:
Megaman said:
Yep! Reminds of Watch Dogs when they actually showed in game footage which was far from what we ended up. Now they are taking it to the next level by calling it a gameplay trailer, showing us nothing but cut scenes.

I’m convinced they think we are ****ing idiots.


I mean, this sort of **** works on KAC but not the rest of us!
Click to expand...

Nah, i'm pretty sure the majority of the gaming world ARE ****ing idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top