Assassin's Creed - Next One in Brazil?

Originally Posted by JFarrell71
I realized early on that there's no lasting point to engaging in those battles, so I stopped doing it. I think I ended up doing it just once voluntarily, and two, maybe three times as required by the plot.

Thanks for the heads up . I just assumed they were mandatory since the war seems to be a big part of events. I’ll skip them going forward.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
They did it's called Assassin's Creed Valhalla. Less of everything this time.

Haven’t played it yet but that sounds like a good thing to me. Why is it not to you?

I heard from reliable sources that the game will take place in Taubate and there will be lots of parkour.

Sorry, brazilian-only meme, folks.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Can't agree half or what made Odyssey a good RPG was removed. The loss of quest markers, and the the bird eye changes are a step back. The story telling wasn't good either. Don't get me started on those stupid fetch quests for relics from older games.

My god they even brought back those stupid woe is me death cut-scenes again.

I liked having the option to turn off quest markers in Valhalla.

I absolutely hated in Origins and Odyssey having the cheat mode of the bird tagging all of your enemies to make stealth trivial. I was glad to see that removed in Valhalla.

The story telling in Valhalla was very good in my view, and each of the boroughs had an interesting story line. Odyssey had even better story telling in my view, but not by much.

I am not aware of fetch quests for relics from older games. As with most open world games, very much including Odyssey, I skipped some types of quests as being ones without any story, much dialog, or point, just there to pad content. Recognizing the pointless quests in open world games is a sort of game in itself.

Odyssey took me 140 hours to complete, at the time the longest single-player game for me ever (length is a good thing for me if I enjoy the game, and I just stop playing a game I don't enjoy so length in that type of game doesn't matter to me). Valhalla took me 177 hours, even skipping those Reza quests, river raids, and the ostara festival.

Originally Posted by NFLed
The story telling in Valhalla was very good in my view, and each of the boroughs had an interesting story line. Odyssey had even better story telling in my view, but not by much.

This is where I have to disagree.
Everyone and everyhing that had more than one quest in Valhalla was plain boring.
For fictional characters that is not surprising, but historical ones are pathetically bad.
Ivarr was a tame version of his RL counterpart and his equally evil or worse brother was presented almost as goody two shoes who ended tragically. WTF.
Compared to Valhalla's story and characters, Origins and Odyssey are both a masterpiece.

The only good thing in Valhalla story is the ending twist that didn't forget Odyssey and used the prime artefact from that game, but cmon.
We, the audience, deserved better.

Originally Posted by Imo.
Haven’t played it yet but that sounds like a good thing to me. Why is it not to you?

I already explained the reasons why.

Valhalla is a throwback to older games in the series. Frankly I'm not surprised as it's the team that made Origins. I look forward to the next game with the Odyssey team.

Though I have doubts as Valhalla turned out to be their biggest seller last year.

Originally Posted by joxer
This is where I have to disagree.
Everyone and everyhing that had more than one quest in Valhalla was plain boring.
For fictional characters that is not surprising, but historical ones are pathetically bad.
Ivarr was a tame version of his RL counterpart and his equally evil or worse brother was presented almost as goody two shoes who ended tragically. WTF.
Compared to Valhalla's story and characters, Origins and Odyssey are both a masterpiece.

The only good thing in Valhalla story is the ending twist that didn't forget Odyssey and used the prime artefact from that game, but cmon.
We, the audience, deserved better.

100% agree with all you wrote Joxer. That's rare.

Originally Posted by joxer
This is where I have to disagree.
Everyone and everyhing that had more than one quest in Valhalla was plain boring.
For fictional characters that is not surprising, but historical ones are pathetically bad.
Ivarr was a tame version of his RL counterpart and his equally evil or worse brother was presented almost as goody two shoes who ended tragically. WTF.
Compared to Valhalla's story and characters, Origins and Odyssey are both a masterpiece.

The only good thing in Valhalla story is the ending twist that didn't forget Odyssey and used the prime artefact from that game, but cmon.
We, the audience, deserved better.

That's fair enough. I 100% disagree, and I enjoyed Ivarr's and every other major quest line in Valhalla. I didn't much like the tiny side "quests" (mysteries) in Valhalla as they were mostly throwaway though not too bad, but every one of the main characters and borough quests were very good and memorable which very much helped near the end when there were callbacks to characters from earlier in the game.

I felt that Origins (created by the same developers of Valhalla) was pretty boring in terms of story for the quests and the overall tired revenge hunts (Origins' setting was good), but at least we agree that Odyssey was great. Hopefully the team which made Odyssey will make another AC game in the future.

All this and more. Consider it my last post on the topic.

As someone who really got into the franchise of Assassin's Creed after playing Origins, and also as someone who considers Odyssey one of my favorite games of last generation, Valhalla just ain't cutting it man.

This game seems like it is a definite step back from those last two titles. The biggest flaws for me personally are the fact that combat is not as exciting or loose in this game and that exploration is not as interesting either. The structure for the story is incredibly boring compared to Odyssey as well.

All you do in this game is go to a settlement or town and meet a few uninteresting and easily forgettable characters and then perform some boring ass quests for them before it all culminates in a one final battle with some of the worst assassination cutscenes I've seen from this series yet.

The game feels often like a wanna be Witcher 3 knock off, sans the magical and fantasy elements of that game, for the most part.

Then there is the loot system in this game. Its basically non-existent when compared to the last two games. I get that Odyssey had too much loot, but at least there was some exciting stuff once in a while in that game. We can't even have one handed swords in this fucking game.

Can't see how this game sold so well and won GOTY on other sites.

Any setting is interesting if you have good storytelling.
But I really hope that they change to another character in modern times instead of the dislikable Layla.
Honestly all of Layla’s flaws are meant to be “empowering”. Ubisoft wanted a strong female lead character, in which there’s nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that they fell into the trap that a lot of Hollywood films and some video games fell into. Instead of creating a meaningful character with substance that’s actually likeable who just happens to be a woman, they instead gave us a hollow Mary Sue since they want to market the message that “women are powerful”.

Originally Posted by Arahael
Any setting is interesting if you have good storytelling.
But I really hope that they change to another character in modern times instead of the dislikable Layla.
Honestly all of Layla's flaws are meant to be empowering�. Ubisoft wanted a strong female lead character, in which there's nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that they fell into the trap that a lot of Hollywood films and some video games fell into. Instead of creating a meaningful character with substance that's actually likeable who just happens to be a woman, they instead gave us a hollow Mary Sue since they want to market the message that women are powerful�.

Well good news then as Layla's story should be over. As it was just meant to be a trilogy, and Assassin's Creed Valhalla was supposed to finish Layla's Modern-Day Story.

Edit#1: We'll see as most modern day Assassin's seem to be female after Desmond.

Edit#2: My last post sorry about that.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Well good news then as Layla's story should be over. As it was just meant to be a trilogy, and Assassin's Creed Valhalla was supposed to finish Layla's Modern-Day Story.

Thanks!. Good to know

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Edit#1: We'll see as most modern day Assassin's seem to be female after Desmond.

I hope not. In the last three games we had female characters (Aya, Kassandra and Eivor), plus a female modern day character (Layla), all to follow the lead of a female Isu (Aletheia).

Originally Posted by Arahael
I hope not. In the last three games we had female characters (Aya, Kassandra and Eivor), plus a female modern day character (Layla), all to follow the lead of a female Isu (Aletheia).

But but… there is not enough women in AC according to mainstream media. How can you say that?
It was reported in main gaming sites that some devs (unnamed) in Ubi teams wanted to create strictly female assassin from Origins to Valhalla - SO NO CHOICE of sex, just FEMALE - but evil man in lead position refused to do it. Instead we have choice of sex - it seems that choice is probably bad by some media, I dont know. So how can you say that?

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
My last post sorry about that.

Thank Valhalla!

If so, no one will play it lol

Haven't played AC since 4. Skipping way ahead if I ever get back into the series - it's tough to choose between Odyssey and Valhalla with all the opinions split down the middle. I like both settings, but I lean more towards a grittier setting (Vikings), if that's the case. Still, gameplay is the most important to me in AC games, over story and maybe just above the setting.

I dont know if I'm ever going to finish Odyssey, so it doesnt matter to me