Assassin's Creed Valhalla - Review @ MXDWN
- Thread starter HiddenX
- Start date
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
Maybe because it doesn't have an in-game store. It has an in menu store, I guess, but since I literally never see the menu again once I start playing the game, it isn't just easy to ignore, it's not even something I ever see.
GabrielMP_19
Vault Survivor
When I read a review, I want to know about the actual game, not shitty microtransactions I can simply ignore.
- Joined
- April 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
You as reader are supposed to be a reader. A writer aka reviewer however is not supposed to hide details that should affect the game score. Unless was paid to.
Or if there are no microtransactions in new AC, but then it's odd no professional reviewer noted such difference between Egiptians+Greeks and now Vikings.
Or if there are no microtransactions in new AC, but then it's odd no professional reviewer noted such difference between Egiptians+Greeks and now Vikings.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
I don't think microtransactions should influence the review score if they do not affect the experience. In the case of AC Valhalla, you can ignore them.
That said, I think it is poor business management from developers to resort to in-game menu microtransactions. There should be other ways, such as those different editions or selling DLC packages with cosmetic shit. Anyway, you see that pretty much every larger developer has their way of trying to get more money from their game than the original price. People seem to get offended when these are added to in-game menus. Otherwise, it's fine?
That said, I think it is poor business management from developers to resort to in-game menu microtransactions. There should be other ways, such as those different editions or selling DLC packages with cosmetic shit. Anyway, you see that pretty much every larger developer has their way of trying to get more money from their game than the original price. People seem to get offended when these are added to in-game menus. Otherwise, it's fine?
I'm playing it right now and I'm about 10-15 hours in.
At this point I'd say that it's an ok game, but in every aspect (story, characters, visuals, combat, sound, setting, exploration) it's weaker than Odyssey.
At this point I'd say that it's an ok game, but in every aspect (story, characters, visuals, combat, sound, setting, exploration) it's weaker than Odyssey.
Last edited:
greywolf00
Keeper of the Watch
Different strokes for different folks. I'm nearing the 40 hour mark and it's vastly superior to Odyssey imo. Odyssey felt too similar to the annual release problem that did little to improve on Origins. I think the setting in Valhalla is a lot more interesting, but it does feel repetitive building an alliance with each subsection of the map. Controls can still be frustrating - eg sticky when you don't want them to be. For an action combat game the system needs a lot of work still and does feel like a step back (most of it lacks a feeling of any weight behind the strikes) and the skill tree is largely uninteresting. I think the supporting characters are also better than Odyssey and they even managed to add some depth to Ivarr who seems very one dimensional at first. It's not as interesting as Origins - which was a massive breath of fresh air to a stale franchise, but another step closer to the RPG side of the house.
What it comes down to is Ubisoft uses multiple development teams for each Assassin's Creed game. One makes the game while others help with development.
So this game was the studio who made Syndicate and Origins not Odyssey. Anyway Ubisoft announced this week Valhalla is the best selling game in the series.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla has biggest launch week in series' history - RPGSite
So this game was the studio who made Syndicate and Origins not Odyssey. Anyway Ubisoft announced this week Valhalla is the best selling game in the series.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla has biggest launch week in series' history - RPGSite
That doesn't surprise me.
That surprises me.
Or perhaps not. Aren't sales numbers depending on the reception of the previous game?
Sorry best selling game at launch. Not overall sales.
I fully expected Valhalla to have a big release just on hype alone. I think it's pretty much a given for the series at this point.
Yep, could be a matter of taste. I just like the mediterranean setting, so perhaps I'm too much influenced by this.
I'll try to break it down:
- story: The first part in Norway is quite clichÃ
but gave an understandable motivation for Eivor. In England you just are forced to follow your brother to find glory by expanding your realm by killing innocents. I don't like being forced this way.
Also there's no actual plot besides the subplots to gain allies.
- characters: Perhaps it's too early too tell but the only interesting characters so far are your sister-in-law and the beforementioned Ivarr. In Odyssey I had great fun with all the greek guys, also the relation to your family members was much more defined and emotional.
Also the integration of the secret orders was a lot better in Odyssey. In England there are just two guys from one order who say that the other order are the bad guys. And Eivor just goes with it. Makes no sense. - visuals: I guess that comes down to the setting. The mediterranean just looks more beautiful than Norway and England. So it's not a technical matter or a question of good or bad art, but taste. Valhalla looks very good. Odyssey (for me) was splendid.
- combat: The special maneuvers imho are underwhekming. I had more fun in Odyssey.
- sound: Mainly technical problems
- setting: Yep, also a matter of taste. Vikings just aren't my cup of tea.
- exploration: It is tied to the setting, but the landscape in Odyssey was just a lot more varied. I haven't been to all places in England yet, but till now everything looks more or less the same.
but gave an understandable motivation for Eivor. In England you just are forced to follow your brother to find glory by expanding your realm by killing innocents. I don't like being forced this way.
greywolf00
Keeper of the Watch
Understandable. I really like the invasion/killing of innocents because it's accurate to the period/theme and something most games shy away from.
The plot changes some as you get further, but I've never been a fan of the meta story once they expanded beyond Templars v Assassin's and dragged in the Isu. The loop overall is pretty static though. It works well for awhile, but considering how long it is variety would be helpful.
Ivarr and Randvi are definitely the standouts. Dag is also memorable, even if he's not likeable post Norway. Sigurd goes downhill and I'm on the fence about Basim. I really wish I had played with the switch between Male and Female setting because I think that was the intended approach with the male parts tying to Odin. I really can't recall anyone from Odyssey offhand though outside of the siblings and Sokrates.
The order introduction is weak in Valhalla. You have to get pretty far into the game - especially if you're not just doing the story missions before they put them into focus in a more intentional way.
The color palette in Odyssey was more appealing. Valhalla is very dark and brown, but it fits the period and overall direction of the game - all the way down to the disgusting green muck. Not pretty to look at, but it fits the atmosphere.
The plot changes some as you get further, but I've never been a fan of the meta story once they expanded beyond Templars v Assassin's and dragged in the Isu. The loop overall is pretty static though. It works well for awhile, but considering how long it is variety would be helpful.
Ivarr and Randvi are definitely the standouts. Dag is also memorable, even if he's not likeable post Norway. Sigurd goes downhill and I'm on the fence about Basim. I really wish I had played with the switch between Male and Female setting because I think that was the intended approach with the male parts tying to Odin. I really can't recall anyone from Odyssey offhand though outside of the siblings and Sokrates.
The order introduction is weak in Valhalla. You have to get pretty far into the game - especially if you're not just doing the story missions before they put them into focus in a more intentional way.
The color palette in Odyssey was more appealing. Valhalla is very dark and brown, but it fits the period and overall direction of the game - all the way down to the disgusting green muck. Not pretty to look at, but it fits the atmosphere.