I hear you I really do but like I blame the fans themselves for this change. Everybody was so quick to crucify Unity and now we’re here. Assassins creed died in Greece for me
Never played Valhalla. I put over 100hrs in Odyssey and still play it. Cassandra is a awesome main character to me. Granted it's not a true Assassin's Creed. At the same time. The series did need to evolve.
Grand Theft Auto 5 then is not Grand Theft Auto game if you compare it to Grand Theft Auto CD-ROM 1996, considering how every single aspect of it is different. Your analogy doesn't work and neither does your brain.
But that also was assassin's creed you wore the robes of an assassin used the weapons of an assassin acted like an assassin worked with assassin's did jobs for assassin's and became an assassin by the end It was different but the core was the same
Even then. Personally I think it would have been a better game if it fully committed to being a pirate game because even with all the Assassin's Creed stuff in it. It was a better pirate game than an Assassin's Creed game. That's not to say it was a bad game at all. Personally I thought it was the last really good one of the series. Just didn't really need to be a part of the series to be a good game
@@FraserSouris You also have to consider the characters. Edward fights for a world where everything is free. Also gotta take into account of all his friends that died
@@FraserSouris eventually, story-wise, Edward still became a proper Assassin, returned to England and had a whole legacy connected to Haytham, then Shay, Connor, etc. Also, the concept of pirates freedom has the same core values as the Creed. So, your comparison is irrelevant.
@@FraserSouris very fine reply, excuse my first impression, it wasn't very understanding. My main point is that i see AC as more of a whole as i also explore the lores from the novels and other media too. The new games, typically Valhalla, just feel disconnected to me so i don't dig really deep into them as much as the older ones.
i get this is a joke and all but imagine your assasin character driving a car really fast and pouncing on another car and stabbing the guy inside while the car crashes and explodes and you escape into the shadows as the car burns with all the evidence inside
I feel a lot of sympathy seeing old AC fans grieve over the series. I have only played a few of the newer games after getting them for very cheap on sale, so I don't really care what they do with the series. But I understand the pain of seeing something you love change completely
You should play the old games, especially the Ezio games and you’ll understand how special Assassin’s Creed was to us back in the day. You can pick up The Ezio Collection and play the remasters.
What’s the problem with AC?? I’ve played them all and I’ve platinumed them all, so I’ve spent 1000s of hours playing them all. And in my opinion, since Origins, AC has improved. The franchise needed to go in a different direction, Origins Odyssey and Valhalla has done that. Whilst I appreciate the last 3 games aren’t for everybody, there are still MANY people out there that do enjoy them. Since Origins people have seen a change in AC, they know what game they are buying and if they don’t like it simply don’t buy it. The only thing I’m not keen on, or not entirely sure how I feel about it yet, is the AC Infinity live service game. I’m a solo player, I enjoy single player story driven games, multiplayer is not my thing. So I don’t know how I feel about this. If I can do everything solo that doesn’t require playing with other people then I’m fine with it, I’ll just do my own thing.
Same, I never was a huge AC fan, but I do like the newer games. However, even I can see quickly that it’s just not the same anymore. Even good things have to end or be changed with time, but I don’t think Ubisoft should sell them as being the same (by still naming them „Assassin's Creed“)
Assassin's Creed only makes sense if we have a creed of assassins. With all the new technology, Assassin's Creed 2 could be a lot more immersive, more interesting. As a stealth game, it should stay stealth.
Ubisoft removed some parts from the games and added new parts but the assassins creed ship is not a ship anymore it is a boat this is why fans are angry from Assassins Creed Valhalla and upcoming Assassins Creed Infinishit
It is a stealth game if you chose to play it that way. Also, archery is stealth. The earlier games took place when archery was replaced with firearms, so stealth appeared different, anything stealth based game before firearms should include archery as a core feature.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely. Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong. AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced. Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players. Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again. Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste. All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did. "The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case. "The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game? Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings. Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
I don’t care what they do, so long as they stop making the protagonists part time assassins. They either are or aren’t assassins. If they are, then they need to follow the creed as it was laid out in AC1. I hated that Black Flag made Edward some part time assassin. It was the reason that I stopped playing these games. I eventually got Origin and Odyssey dirt cheap.. and it was nice that nobody was pretending to be an assassin when they obviously couldn’t care less about the creed. What I miss the most, is having to be aware of how something could be climbed. There were some problem with it here and there.. but it added something to the experience. The Mako in Mass Effect 1 is what the vehicular version of climbing in modern AC games would be.
i know its the Joker reference but the first time i read it, i remembered bo burnham song called sad it says “The world isn’t sad, The world is funny! IMMA SOCIOPATH!!!!!!”
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely. Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong. AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced. Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players. Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again. Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste. All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did. "The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case. "The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game? Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings. Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
@@FraserSouris you made valid points. Personally I just stopped playing AC after Origins as I don't like the direction they're taking the franchise in and dislike the rpg elements as I feel like they are poorly done.
Well, if it still looks like the original ship and functions like the original ship, it is effectively the same ship. Which cannot be said about Assassins Creed lol
You are, technically, a walking, breathing ship of Theseus. Every few years or so, every single cell on your body was completely replaced by new ones. Your old body is out there in the form of urine, feces, skin residues, etc. It's crazy to think about that.
Assassins Creed died with Desmond. He was the story. Ezio Altair and Connors stories all had meaning and direction based on the modern day goal of Desmond and his crew.
@Creed ASSassins I agree that the series could have taken a different and interesting turn but given that it didn’t I stand by the statement that it died with Desmond. Even if they try to go back now they’ve broken too much canon with the recent ones, it’s done
@Tim C Desmond actually shows up in Valhalla. But its in such a way that if you never played any of the games with desmond. Or if you just don't recognize Nolan Norths voice then you might miss it.
@@monishvj5172 BF is going futuristic with grappling hooks and electric storms...hardly going back to its roots. Halo Infinite might be...still looks like a mix of Halo 3 and Halo 5 which is fine imo. I dont expect a series to say the same or even keep the same vibe. I just want a solid experience. Titanfall 1 and Titanfall 2 is a prime exanple of how a game can change and evolve but still be a solid series.
@@GoldLBSyes but along with ww2 and modern military with portal. when I am talking about BF I am talking about bf 2042 portal , it is the closest thing to mods in bf right now. bf used to have great player created experience now they are doing just that so far. also the monetization so far dont have pay walls for content. this is how gaming used to be 15 years ago.
Ship of Theseus in no way applies to AC. The entire idea of the thought experiment is that the replaced part are the same as the originals. If a person was to see the original boat and then see it 10 years later after all the parts were replaced, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. That's obviously not the case with AC. AC is more like if your pet dog dies and you get a new one that's a completely different breed and give it the same name as the original one.
@@Frogman1212 In that case, the structure of the ship is still the same. Kind of like the original Demons Souls vs the Bluepoint remake. I still don't think that really applies because Ubisoft was, as far as I can tell consciously trying to change things up as opposed to serving up more of the same game after game.
@@atquinn1975 good point on the Bluepoint remake. I guess a better comparison would be the first 3 Resident Evils and then 4 and up. Which the survival horror fans criticis too. They switched to 1st person camera at 7 but they at least returned to being Survival Horror.
Or if you get the Theseus ship, remove the sail, add some wheels and now you have a bigg cariage... IT's still a vehicle, it moves, has the same name, but it is no longer a ship! Assassin's Creed Without Assassins, yes, its still a game, but it isn't the same thing.
Same here bro. After 20 hrs I couldn't keep going. This from someone who loved Origins and put in 180hrs to complete whole game plus all dlc and also put in 220hrs to do the same in odyssey. It all comes down to the world being too big, too empty with not enough variety to offer for the playtime it's designed to complete the game. Every area in the map looks exactly the same which I think is also one of the biggest problems. The fighting leveling system is messed up because after only 20hrs of doing some side stuff you end up so over levelled that you burn though enemies like hot knife through butter with 0 challenge.
I went and 100%ed every AC game before valhalla came out, i made sure every game had that hundo on the save file (all achievements was what i did for origins and odyssey since theres repeatable stuff) but i couldnt finish Valhalla. I wasnt having fun in a different way than i was when collecting all the treasures in brotherhood or flipping the same region 10 times to level up in odyssey. I enjoyed playing the game enough to do monotonous shit but not with valhalla
Literally same, it’s so bad. I loved both origins and especially odyssey but Valhalla is just absolutely terrible, you can’t even clear out forts in stealth mode anymore it’s literally been made to be raided only
@@fiel81 Valhalla was boring but Odyssey was fun as hell as an rpg set in Ancient Greece I had a blast, and I felt like the world was being lived in more than a lot of other games imo.
Thats the thing about Japan. If a creative decision flops in one entry. They will diligently return to the fans or go out on a limb for the fans. Others in AAA I wonder if theyre too focus grouped, or are in a awkward dance with the playerbase where they really wanted to make/sell something else.
@@Ghost_Text but see for some reason Ubisoft thinks that what ever u want to call Valhalla, is selling well (BECAUSE OF MICRO TRANSACTIONS) that this is way to go so they won’t ever return back to the AC we all know and love so for that reason i will never touch another game.
@@sero2682 Video games crossed a dangerous threshold when they started making more than blockbuster films. The sharks that encouraged overly corporatized design took notice. The rise of Zynga was like a final nail in the coffin. Its hard to make a genuine title oriented around mastering systems, with all these interactive mini casinos setting the norm.
Revelations is amazing in it's art direction and soundtrack, with great concepts, but the map falls flat, gameplay leaves much to be desired, and story was poor. I mean after brotherhood, you'd think that 16 would atleast know something important, but nope. Thank god Darby left, because he never really cared. Just lied and fools many. Revelations is proof of this.
@@Conorp77 I disagree, as do many. But I respect your opinion. However darbys top tier writing made a joke of 16 and the modern day story, and frankly wasted altier. Mot to mention animis island only barely makes any sense at all. He's also the goon who introduced people being born again. Something that at the time felt very stupid.
@@illustriousindividual1077 Rouge came before Unity, didn't it? And I not sure about Syndicate from the few hours I did play of it, it didn't feel like the previous AC games to me
Honestly, as time goes by, I think more and more are coming to appreciate Unity A LOT and in hindsight see that despite it's buggy release, as an AC game it was true to the franchise and the same can't really be said for a lot of the recent releases
17:22, I have to disagree with that comparison between AC and GTA. While the games have changed and evolved throughout the decade, the core of GTA has largely remained the same, a crime, sandbox filled with carnage and mayhem. Assassin's Creed has transitioned into an entirely different genre. It's been 3 games since we have played an actual assassin. I feel like Assassin's Creed has had similar treatment to one of Ubisoft's other games, Far Cry. It's just become another sandbox game with little focus.
Not really true. Everything with Orgin’s on was before the Assassins and was about what led to the Assassins, what led to the Templars, and about the ISU bloodline. It’s not a different genre it’s a just a different style.
@@Hexenkind1 games change styles like I said. That’s like saying elder scrolls online is not a elder scrolls game because this one is open world or these are not real Farcry games because it’s not the original styles.
@@garrettgoppert7804 No it is not. RPG is a different genre then an action adventure, naturally if that changes it is a different game in many aspects. It is not the same thing anymore. Without a doubt. And you feel it in every second if you play the old ones and the new ones now.
Just makes me so sad. My favourite series, the one thing I looked forward to after a stressful day of school and they destroy it in front of me over an agonizing period of a few years.
Ezio and Connor legit saved my life after my girlfriend used me, left me for dead and took nearly all of my friends and basically world. I had another world though... That's what immersion is all about, it can take you out into another world. The new franchise can't maintain any immersion for me, they just feel like games and immersive games aren't supposed to feel like games.
I feel your pain, only with Halo instead of AC. Though I am still very sad about AC changing. I do like Origins and Odyssey to an extent but, it's just not the same to me. There were already too few stealth games on the market, now there's even less.
I still don’t understand why they went the RPG route, why not go to the red dead, action/ adventure open world, if they blended the red dead series and the Assassins creed series (before syndicate) it probably would become the best game on the current gen of consoles in terms of graphics, story, side content and characters
Less work, roughly equal outcome. Think about how long it takes to create something like red dead vs how often assassin's creed games have been put out
Because the RPG facilitated the transition from AAA single-player, to an 'incomplete SP', to Lite Service, down to outright Live Service. In a similar way, I feel the same way about games such as Gotham Knights.
RPG’s done right are great but if there done half assed they fall flat on their face just like all 3 of these games have done in varying amounts, as pretty much every one has noticed the RPG assassins creed games haven’t done anything better than what their inspiration is, Witcher 3 does the RPG side better and the older ac games has better stories, there isn’t one special thing about these games
But if they went the action/ adventure open world route they can work on a quality game with a great story that can be expanded, characters that can be explored over many games, parkour that can make the in between moments of the game fun and exciting just like the web swinging mechanic in Spider-Man and unlike gta where your driving car with no creativity. Yes we wouldn’t get an Assassins creed every year, but look at rockstar, if it works for them it would work for Ubisoft, especially with how big the Assassins creed brand is now
For me the Assassin's Creed I knew and loved ended with both Unity and Syndicate, which are both my personal favourites of the series, as well as the most underrated.
I'd never played an AC game before. During the summer sale, I bought all the games except the 3 newer ones. I started with 1 and am almost to Brotherhood now and LOVE it. Super excited to get to Black Flag. But honestly the newer 3 don't intrigue me all that much because they don't look like what I'm currently enjoying at allm
Of the three "new" AC titles, Origins is still pretty good. While lacking social stealth, atleast it sticks to the themes of the series, and Bayek's a really great character. Odyssey is a pretty good game... if it wasn't marketed as an AC title. Valhalla is kinda alright
@@fitzviandraduivenab2790 1 thing I never get is how people call odyssey better then Valhalla, odyssey has been easily the worse game in the series in terms of gameplay, story, and graphics (for its time). In odyssey, it’s trying to be a mmo with micro transactions for loot boxes and randomly generated gear. The skills are pretty cool, but you never use half of them because there are only a few good ones. Also people always say the stealth is better, when it didn’t have social stealth, hiding in bushes, or even a hidden blade. The only 1 up on Valhalla for stealth I can think of is that icarus can see enemies through walls so you can plan routes. In Valhalla, the loot pool is more like AC2 and onward. It’s loot that is curated and put in the same place every time. Sure there’s more loot then the AC2 but that’s a given because it’s more of an RPG then the older games were. Also the stealth has everything I said before. How do you even try to replicate being an assassins without a hidden blade. And I don’t remember many times in Odyssey when you were given the option to stealth, usually you just thought, maybe I can stealth this, and usually it failed. The story in odyssey is the worst in the series. It’s only purpose was in the Atlantis dlc that set up Valhalla. What happened to the cult, dead, what happened to the apples, gone. It didn’t even set up the origin of the Templar’s except maybe showing the beginning of the ideology. Also, there were way to many just random magical bosses, don’t get me wrong they are fun to fight, but from a story perspective, why are there so many apples in Greece. In Valhalla the story sets up the future of the franchise. literally shows the beginning of the Templar’s, shows what led the hidden ones to becoming assassins, and also shows that there’s way more “reincarnations” then we initially thought. Not to mention that the new protagonist for the next 3 games or so was shown, and the goal of that protagonist. The whole Asgard and Jotunheimr arc were needed to again, show the new protagonists motivations, and how the reincarnations started and worked. The “magical” bosses, while I am bothered that the only non drug caused boss is the final boss in wrath, were only in the Asgard arc, plus two in wrath. Graphically, odyssey looks like origins, like I can barely tell the difference. The world looks better because it’s not mostly a desert. The water looks better because again, it’s not a desert. The buildings look pretty good actually, but some of the animations are terrible, especially alexios’s. Also in many cutscenes people just stood still and talked. In AC Valhalla, on next gen, the game looks ahead of its time for an open world rpg. On current gen the game still looks pretty good, even with the frame problems. The animations were amazing, no characters were just standing still in cutscenes, they were always gesturing with their hands, moving their heads, pacing, not just standing still. Finally, the voices are amazing in Valhalla, female eivor and kassandra are canon, and you can really tell that the VA tried hard for them. Kassandra was really good, loved it. Eivor sounded like she had her throat torn at the beginning, maybe because the wolves literally did that or maybe because she was the proud warrior of the ravens clan. Later on, she softened her tone, became more of a leader. Alexios sounded like garbage, always. Male eivor sounds good, like a poet, a nice change from what Vikings are portrayed like sounding. But his voice didn’t change over the story so I still think Female eivor wins there. TLDR: I get how people can see odyssey is a good game, but I don’t see how Valhalla is a bad game, or even worse then odyssey.
@Tom Ffrench a good assassins creed game it does. If you don’t have any relation to assassins or Templar’s or isu. You can’t call it assassins creed. The more of it the better
Well unlike Fast and the furious AC now is still the same game story wise as it was in AC1. Fast went from being movies about racing to what ever the fuck it is now lol
I was a assassins creed fan from the start and with the idea of infinity this is where i step off Odyssey and valhalla were not ac games and now this looks even worse. Ubisoft should look at how Hitman has retained what it is and still advanced or how Disohonred advanced without sacrificing what it was total war has always been total war even with advancements. Ubisoft is blinded by money and can not see that you can still be successful if you follow the core elements of your franchise.
"total war has always been total war even with advancements" ehhhhhh kinda right and wrong, they just add old mechanics they have remove in the new games
I hope Infinity will just be it's own thing with updates while they keep making more main title games, and they use infinity to make plots that they normally wouldn't with main titles. So in the future it could be one of the best things done for the series. Fans want a Shao Jun story? Not going to happen in the main series! But hell put it in infinity! Sequel for Arno? Put it in infinity! I just hope and hope, hope hope they keep making more installments while infinity can be our ever refilling appetizers for the next games without having to wait. Hell, it infinity could be a great thing to keep us entertained and still satisfied if they decided to make a AC game that will take more years to make. If Ubisoft cares then infinity would be a highly treasured thing they could have done for the series.
I was SOOOO into valhalla int he first hours, but when I realized the first hours would already show me everithing in terms of gameplay and even narative I go to sad. if the same game was a third of the sizd it would already be a better game than it is now
I put 180 hours into it b4 I quit playing just got boring haven't played it in over 5 months I keep playing all the old ones these our assassin creed games to me
This is the primary problem with the new AC games. Odyssey was similar. The games aren't *bad* by any means, but that said, you can have too much of a good thing, and this is certainly that. The games are just bloated, aimless and repetitive. Cramming as much as you can into a game for the sake of it isn't always a good thing, and more doesn't equal better. Sure, that works in a game like Skyrim because the sandbox *is* the heart of the game. Something like AC Valhalla on the other hand tries to be multiple things at once, and so comes short in each of these things.
The GTA comparison isn't a good reference man, because the original Gta is not what made it good, assassins creed has completely changed and missed what made it assassins creed in the first place
It's changed for the better IMO. And people have always complained about the AC games. I think the only universally loved one was 2 and I doubt that holds up as well. Counter heavy combat and lots of dull tailing missions? No thank you.
LOL I was just about to post this. That comparison was soooooo cringe. This guy still walking on eggshells smh. Pretty much all the core AC fan youtubers have bent the knee to ubisoft. He even tried to distance himself from the few that still speak their minds(Lazzers, masterassassin, fizhy). He not trying to lose them free advanced copies smh. His ship analogy was trash as well. His infinity critique was the worst. He know damn well ubisoft is gonna turn it into a micro transaction land field. He accidentally admitted that this is the direction they were pushing it in lol. You know it's gonna require that you be connected online too. That's the last thing you want ubisoft to have. Last but not least, he said "the best development teams coming together". Ubisoft Quebec created syndicate and odyssey. The two wackest, senseless, wacky, bizarre "AC" games smh. Montreal were around before ubisoft fired the creator. They actually love the series and know the lore. But the main guys were fired or quit. So this is definitely gonna be a mess.
@@bigpileofpuke but that's the thing, changes are good. It's just ubisoft missed the target by a long shot. They literally used witcher 3 as a reference for their new AC designs instead of using hitman as a reference or MGS. Those games aged well and hitman 3 despite the short campaign is still highly replayable. An assassination/espionage game should have decent direct combat encounter and mainly focus on much slower methodical assassination gameplay. And yes, many people complaint about AC games but a) it's mainly because most AC games were released broken and b) at the very least they won't deny that it's still an AC games.
@@bigpileofpuke and the difference between GTA and AC changes is that GTA despite the changes, still is a game about guns,drugs and stealing cars but AC went from assassination with style to the frickin Witcher. There's a clear difference there. The thing is I would be very welcome from ubisoft to change AC format. And they at least once were successfully doing so with AC chronicles but was completely ignored by the Ubisoft since it's not triple A material enough. So yeah, poor assassination and stealth gameplay with padded out repetitive content? No thank you.
@@freddice8156 If any game should have taken reference from those it's the horrible Wildlands and Breakpoint games. The modern AC games are masterpieces compared to those. Different strokes for different folks. Ubisoft can't please everybody. AC still sells incredibly well so lots of people, including me, like the changes to the last 3 AC games. They're far from perfect, but they're solid 7.5-8/10 open world action adventures. If I replayed the older AC games I'd probably rate them 6-7/10. Like I said before, I'm so over that easy counter-heavy combat and dull tailing missions. I got AC3 Remastered for free which I want to eventually play but I remember people bitching about that when it came out.
I enjoyed the series up to Origins but hated Odyssey it for the most part had nothing to do with Assassins Creed. I enjoyed Valhalla but it was too damn long and really felt like they were trying to please too many people.
Ac Unity is the best modern day assassins creed game now that the bugs and all the issues have been fixed. It FEELS like assassins creed, it’s for the best parkour, great stealth, Paris is a beautiful and amazing setting, it’s for the brotherhood and templars in it, you actually feel like an assassin and it’s got great combat that’s actually challenging. It doesn’t deserve the hate it was only bad at launch. It’s the best ac game since brotherhood and 2 and it’s better then every new ac game that’s come out since.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely. Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong. AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced. Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players. Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again. Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste. All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did. "The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case. "The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game? Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings. Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
No, syndicate furthered the staleness feeling for classic AC, that's why I think it's part of why they changed it after that. But yknow you couldve just NOT released games every year for ficks sake staleing the market
@@zhikos_6441 Ac syndicate was shit Shit parkour, shit story. Jacob was an idiot, evie was okay Crawford starrick was bad villain Very forgettable game.
I became a fan through AC Odyssey. Loved the rpg focus. But i feel for older fans. I wish Ubisoft would make side games in an older style to give those fans something as well.
I tried odyssey but I felt like it was made by someone who was described what an RPG is but had never actually seen an RPG. Then again I started playing it right after I finished the witcher 3 so it was obvious to me that they were trying to copy it but didn't have the know how to pull it off. Respect if you liked it though I'm glad that you enjoyed it
God dude this series was my jam in middle school and high school and I still find myself revisiting the older games all the time but this series is a complete shell of its former self I really wish it would just either end or go back to its roots which I totally doubt would ever happen sooooo please just end at this point
Why you wish that ? You do realize that there's Millions and millions of people than enjoy the newer games and look forward to EVREY release right ? Stop being selfish and move on
@@cairosubside3272 yes if it's not for me anymore I would just move on and not complain on twitter for the rest of my life ! Plus I don't think Ubi will listen to 5% crying on twitter anyway so this is just a waste of time
@@mrmeme2917 this is TH-cam mate, not twitter. And he is speaking for himself, he most likely knows that Ubisoft don't care about his thoughts. He is just saying how heartbroken he is. Quit being an ass!
Assassin's creed died in AC3 when they killed Desmond and the modern story. After that it has become a madden/2k style game. Yearly releases with no/limited upgrades.
@@TheBasedBalkan not anymore due to ac3. Before that tho thats what sold the game. Templars vs assassin throughout time and now culminates to modern times. Have you even played the early games? 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah basically ubisoft games are the only games i can consistantly say "if you didnt like the first 4 hours get a refund. Mostly its going to be just repeating the same 4 hours for 150hours. "
i played odyssey like 6 hours on the free weekend and bought it then for 17€. Now a year later I have 24 hours and most of that time the gameplay sucked (fighting isn't fun like it was in origins) but at lwast it is my vacation simulator in covid times lmao
To me it was the other way around. I thought the story was what kept me engaged. The gameplay was goddamm repetitive and boring but I kept playing because I wanted to know what was happening next. I was very happy when I saw that they are kinda taking it back to the modern plot. And the whole ending section was really great to me
@Ciel Phantomhive Gokuson It just depends on what you want from games. I like the ridiculously huge worlds of the new AC games and even though the combat is just okay, I still find it more satisfying than the old AC's easy counter-heavy combat (which I liked back in the day).
@@bigpileofpuke lmao SO untrue. Barely died in odyssey nor valhalla. Asaasins creed ezio trilogy, kenway family, and Altair were all challenging and fun.
Assasins Creed Unity was the last of the franchise that made me feel like it was an AC game. Not to say Origins wasn't good cause imho it was a work of art but could have been better if Aya was the main character since she is Amunet and would be a sweet nod to the actual Origins of the brotherhood.
@@IamSupreme333 the bigger idiot is the one crying about someone having a different opinion. You and your friend are so soft, why get triggered at all?
It's like when one of your favorite bands releases an album every year or two. The band progresses musically and while each subsequent album release is similar to the last it's still a little different. To the point, when you compare the jump from album 1 to album 5, there is no similarities with a big difference in sound, writing or technique, the music is almost unrecognizable and as a result is the music doesn't feel the same to you. You still like their older material but don't like the new stuff.
The shorter version is "Trigger's Broom" That said I never played any previous games except Odyessy and Ioved that, simply for being able walk around ancient Greece.
yes, will never happen but 2 with good graphics (i am fine with ac unity level) and gameplay elements of unity would be the dream... and then we got that crap edition remaster
I want an ac remake where its one of them remakes that doubles as a remaster as well. So take AC1 put it in Valhalla's engine and remake the game from there. With all the current mechanics. And for those that hate the new games. Then you would also have a remastered version of AC1 where its the exact same game as the original AC1. But with better graphics and improved mechanics like AC3 remastered did
You could say the same of practically any franchise right now. The future of gaming sadly is becoming just a corporate money grab to as wide of an audience as possible, leaving the original core audience abused and neglected.
In a series where the Templars are only actual Knights Templar in a single game we complain that the Assassins aren't always literal Assassins. Fans need to stop claiming ownership of something that's not theirs to own.
i literally couldnt play AC Valhalla because i was absolutely shocked that there wasn’t even proper cutscenes. in such a big game, there’s about an hour of cutscenes. i was shocked.
I wish Ubisoft would drop the Assassins Creed name and metanarrative. Making a bunch of fun, mostly historically accurate, open world action games with little to nothing explicitly linking them together (or a just central hub area like you think infinity will be) may work better.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely. Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong. AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced. Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players. Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again. Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste. All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did. "The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case. "The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game? Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings. Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
@@oh-not-the-bees7872 well That's the point of the modern day parts. For story purposes when using the animus we're seeing the true history of the world according to the AC universe.
I'm not really a fan of Black Flag but the ending is just beautiful in such a mature way it almost feels out of place yet so very earned. It's a great ending.
The only thing I spell assassin’s creed Valhalla, that I don’t like, is the lack of new game plus or to be able to replay missions odyssey was a really good game in my opinion and origins was good. I only played a little bit of it. And those games are more like RPG’s, but I like open world RPG’s so I have no problem with it.
I like Valhalla, however it isn't even assassin's creed anymore, I believe they should just scrap the series and just move forward with the action RPG style game that the devs are clearly more interested in making.
Not the devs, it's ubisoft. They fired the creator a while back and took it from him. His dev team stayed and ubisoft have been directing ever sense smh.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely. Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong. AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced. Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players. Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again. Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste. All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did. "The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case. "The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game? Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings. Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
I know a bloke who is a road sweeper, and hrs used the same sweeper for the last 22 yes. He's changed the head 8 times and the handle 3 times. And he's very proud of it, bless em
i was thinking the exact same thing. i recently started playing throught ac 2 and it is a far cry from somthing like origins and it really upsets me. keep up the great work luke
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely. Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong. AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced. Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players. Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again. Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste. All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did. "The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case. "The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game? Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings. Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
I actually got Valhalla as a deal pretty shortly after release. On the PSN store it was bundled with Odyssey and Origins for the same $60 tag. Then I realized the commitment of completing even ONE of these games, and to be honest, I played Odyssey the most, and I've barely even come close to finishing it. I got really bored with Valhalla, really quickly. I didn't find the world that interesting and it didn't feel right.
I’ve played every single game, love pretty much all of them, Brotherhood is my favorite, it was black flag where I realized the true fun of the franchise, I remember playing that and thinking this doesn’t feel like assassins, but then I thought it’s a fuckin awesome pirate game… that’s when it clicked, I just enjoy every game for what it is, historical action adventure games, I don’t feel the need to desperately cling to the it’s gotta be stabby stealthy white hoods every time! Honestly that would kinda get old… I think the variety is fine… plus the modern games have arguably better stealth mechanics than the old ones (if you choose to build your char that way) the main thing they had was crowd stealth which was awesome, but at least in the modern games there’s an actual crouch button with many ways and tools to approach enemies. Idk maybe I’m easy to please but, having a fun adventure through historical settings is enough for me lol
Actual conversations and thinking is why I enjoy this channel. Not because I specifically agree with all of Lukes opinions, but more the fact he takes a chance to make these videos in the first place. Original thought or conversation is not super popular on TH-cam (I know anyone reading this is shocked to hear). I stubbornly do opinion pieces myself, so respect the work :)
What fantasy stuff? This is a sci-fi game not a fantasy game. There is no magic or actual mythical creatures. Anything that you think is magic is actually just a piece of eden. All the mythical creatures you see are just Isu science experiments.
Season 1: Desmond Arc (up to 3) Season 2: Nameless protag arc (4-Syndicate) Season 3: Leila Arc (Origins-Valhala) Season 4: probably new protag or nameless protagonist (Infinity) Spin-Off series (Chronicles games)
Bro people try the "just give it a chance" shtick with every new game that ends up being shit. Every time. Predictions happen based on the past. There is every reason to shit on the same pattern we've seen destroy many franchises.
@@mrmeme2917 Nah. Same patterns. Same result. In 5 years you'll be quiet and I'll be going through this again. COD, Avengers, Cyberpunk, on and on and on.
@@Frogman1212 Yeah don't think so buddy , the game could be trash or it could be the best AC yet we don't even what it is and people are already crying 🤦🏼
Sounds like the Assassins Creed franchise is going the way of the elder scrolls. In terms of the makers no longer caring to appeal to the original fanbase and instead aiming for more broad appeal.
It's not the developer you should be mad at it's the company that owns the developers that you should be mad at. They are the ones who are thinking about the money and not the fans. The developers get shafted on almost every game that exists.
Even Origins was somewhat grounded. The DLC when Bayek goes to the Duat, it’s more like a dream, representing the fact that he is still seeking to find a way to bring his son back I think. In the end it was all an illusion shared by most of Egypt but informed Bayek of this fact, that he still needed some closure. From what I understand Curse of the Pharaohs actually takes place before The Hidden Ones which is the last chapter of Bayek’s adventures apparently. This is why for me Odyssey is when the franchise truly lost itself. Nothing in Aaru looked lived in, it all looked like it served a purpose to Bayek’s journey. There was no politics like there was in the Greek Underworld, just moral and spiritual beats.
Because if they called it anything else people would still bitch it not being called Assassins Creed when clearly it has the hidden blade,the hood,involves the Assassins and the precursors of the Templar order. No matter what,people will complain.
Being part of the Creed has never been about the aesthetic (hood, blade, and etc.). Killing some Templars don't make you part of the Creed. You learn that in AC 1. When you eat, sleep, and breathe the Creed, that's when you become apart of the Brotherhood. As long as money is driving the franchise, it will never go back to the original message of what it really means to be apart of the Creed...
Ac oddysey is 99% greek war and 1% assassins creed Ac valhalla is 95% viking stories and 5% assassins crreed Hidden blades, hoods etc dont make this assassins creed. Playing as an assassin and fighting a war against the templars makes a game assassins creed
@@mrmeme2917 Uhm Edward became an assassin and changed his life which makes a game fulfilling. Kassandra and Eivor never become assassins and the games are meaningless. Just a huge waste of time. Black flag is a great game but a bad ac game since it's main focus is pirates but in the end you still play as an assassin making it somewhat assassins creed. Odyssey is a great game but there is nothing ac about it. Literally nothing. Valhalla is a mediocre game. Eivor never becomes an assassin and the whole game is meaningless. Nothing fulfilling about it. You put in 100 hours easily for nothing.
Dude you know that Eivor's story is still uncompleted right 😂 the game will be supported for another 2 years and Ubisoft could absolutely make her an Assassin , at least I would take that over a Edward where becomes an Assassin in a fucking comic book 😂
The gameplay in Valhalla is just terrible. The enemies fly away like rag dolls. The stealth is even worse, you get spotted in a millisecond if god forbid an enemy sees you from a kilometer away. Hell, odyssey had better stealth, and it wasn’t even a game that focused on stealth.
@@karangtavana1283 That is one opinion , it's true the guards spot eivor in one glance but not always. This happens when they are alerted like when a dead body is spotted (in this case they also gain the ability to look up 😛) or in restricted areas the closer he is the faster he is spotted. As for the gameplay in general it is your opinion which you're entitled to but I prefer it from odyssey or origins I think it felt more organic than those two even though I prefer the previous formula.
@@seniorsterling1064 That would be an option I guess but they missed way better opportunities for spin offs also supposedly it's already decided what they're doing next
@@demonkey6997 yea i know but if you want a different toned story in the same universe just do wat the yakuza franchise did, judgement, action brawler gameplay. Yakuza 7 turn based gameplay. Bam everybody is satisfied and no fans are left to the wayside.
11:53 That can be said for pretty much everything that I ever loved since my childhood. My superheroes, elder scrolls, vampire the masquerade, star wars...
Its....a good game, just doesn't have an interesting of a story as 1, 2 or brotherhood. And the game looks like shit, I think at times ac1 has better graphics. The multiplayer was the only reason I had probably 100 hours in revalations
@@MHWGamer Revelations was a boring cash grab with a terrible family power struggle story that made no sense, there was no clear villain, the graphics were barely an improvement over brotherhood, the gameplay was clunky and hardly improved, and ultimately didn’t accomplish anything since the library was empty anyway. The first 2 hours and the last 2 hours were good, along with the Altair flashback missions, but that’s about it. 90% of the game was bad.
What stealth mechanics are you missing from the previous AC games, Luke? You mean those repetitive and frustrating scripted chase/eavesdrop missions with poor AI? 😂
The multiplayer in Brotherhood is maybe my favorite multiplayer mode of all time. I'm not really a multiplayer kind of guy but it was just so original and satisfying. Everyone is somebody's cat while simultaneously being a different person's mouse. You'd pretend to be a npc as defense AND offense! Its was genius!
My favorite kill of all time would be to social stealth inside a crowd, wait for my target to run by, tag them with poison, and swing the camera to watch them continue running, slow down, then keel over. All without me ever moving. Absolutely brilliant. ^^
Ubisoft was always an overrated company, it’s just now when they released their newest games when the ugly came out. That’s why I’m worried with the new Star Wars game they are working on, hope it’s not just a copy of watch dogs.
@@d_marv3lous237 I agree but ea didn't make that game, respawn did. ea said singleplayer games are dead. Respawn deserves credit for fallen order, not ea.
The experiment is about a ship, but a better example to prove that despite the changes thing remains the same is the village - Once a village is established it is as intended, but does not become other village three generations later anyway. Thus, if there is continuity, the village or the ship are themselves.
Here’s my issue with this. 1. If a series never changed and evolved people would complain that the series is stale and never changes, but when they do the fan base cries and complains because it’s different. YES THATS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. 2 Ubisoft can do whatever they want it’s their title.
I agree with number 1, but 2 ain't it. I mean, yes, obviously they can do whatever they want, but at the end of the day they're creating games for people to buy, so if people don't want to buy it, they should be able to express that
Problem is balance, they changed too much now and the yearly to bi yearly release just makes it so tiring to get them. And then they further bog this stuff down with multiple microtransaction things to sell you now :/ It's why I stopped with rogue buying anything ubisoft honestly
1. Change is good but changing the meaning of the franchise is wrong. Ac is about assassins and templars, not about vikings or spartans. 2. Then ubi will cry like ea that no one buys their games. Bf5 is great example of this.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely. Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong. AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced. Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players. Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again. Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste. All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did. "The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case. "The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game? Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings. Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
I've always loved taking the Ship of Theseus idea a step further. What happens if you take all the planks of the original ship, then rebuild that ship with the original parts, which is the original ship? The one that had all the planks replaced, or the one that is made of all the pieces of the first ship? Nice meme about the shaved face, lol.
Far Cry 1 and 2 are merely technical demos of the CryEngine and Dunia, respectively. Buy FC2 is mechanically and thematically superior to all titles in the series. Unless 6 delivers with the Macarena gun.
I used to play ghost recon wildcards as a modern day Assassin's creed game. So my head cannon I wasn't working for the US I was working for the brotherhood and had my squad dressed in white hoodies. Honestly it gave me a whole lot of fun
I recon that even if Ubisoft released an Assassin's Creed with their older mechanics, they would still sell a lot more than the older games. I presume that the sales records of Valhalla is a by-product of increased brand recognition, and the combined appeal of purchasing the newer games, rather than the older ones. I would say that there are lots more AC fans now, and the sales would still reflect this regardless of the type of game (OG or RPG).
Man I completely disagree with Valhalla. Out of the 3 newer ones, Valhalla seems like it has way more to do with the Assassins and more classic assassin stuff vs. Oddessey and Origins. I also think Valhalla just has a better setting and way more interesting characters than the other two.
@@seniorsterling1064 i live that its longs as hell. It also makes me a lit better for spending $120 on it. It took me 128 hours to beat the main quests. And i still have a bunch of shit on the mao to do. All this be for the first DLC came out. So id say it was money well spent.
I like vallhalla but the best thing about it for me is that it got me into the franchise and now I've played all AC games except 3 rogue origins , Odyssey (I probably won't play Odyssey) and 1 ( I probably won't be able to play 1)
One of the most crybaby fanbases back at it again. The thing this fanbase has to realize is things evolve and change over time. Assassins creed has to change over the years. The lore is still there in the new games. Could you imagine if GTA stayed the same like the first two games? What about Fallout or Mass Effect? All those games are different genres than how they started out
Why are you reducing him to a "cry baby"? No need to be a dick.. . You can revolutionise a game series without watering it down to the point of it being devoid of whatever made it original. These new games exist to make you slog through the bloat and buy all the fucking micro transactions they shove in your face even though it'd a sp game. What a joke. We all have our standards. Some lower than others..
🎮 TWITCH: www.twitch.tv/thelukeler 🎮
I agree with all your points. Keep up the great videos!
Slight editing glitch at 7:31 but otherwise great video :)
I hear you I really do but like I blame the fans themselves for this change. Everybody was so quick to crucify Unity and now we’re here. Assassins creed died in Greece for me
Never played Valhalla. I put over 100hrs in Odyssey and still play it. Cassandra is a awesome main character to me. Granted it's not a true Assassin's Creed. At the same time. The series did need to evolve.
Grand Theft Auto 5 then is not Grand Theft Auto game if you compare it to Grand Theft Auto CD-ROM 1996, considering how every single aspect of it is different. Your analogy doesn't work and neither does your brain.
Black Flag was a good example on how to be Assassin's creed while also being something else
But that also was assassin's creed you wore the robes of an assassin used the weapons of an assassin acted like an assassin worked with assassin's did jobs for assassin's and became an assassin by the end
It was different but the core was the same
Even then. Personally I think it would have been a better game if it fully committed to being a pirate game because even with all the Assassin's Creed stuff in it. It was a better pirate game than an Assassin's Creed game.
That's not to say it was a bad game at all. Personally I thought it was the last really good one of the series. Just didn't really need to be a part of the series to be a good game
And how change can sometimes be a good thing.
@@malum1424 for the last 10% of the game, almost the whole game you were a Templar, so it’s not an assassins creed game I guess
I disagree. I HATED the ship combat
Nothing screams “assassin” more than leading a Viking raid lol
As opposed to being a Pirate engaging in massive ship battles or a merc fighting in massive battles?
@@FraserSouris You also have to consider the characters. Edward fights for a world where everything is free. Also gotta take into account of all his friends that died
@@FraserSouris eventually, story-wise, Edward still became a proper Assassin, returned to England and had a whole legacy connected to Haytham, then Shay, Connor, etc. Also, the concept of pirates freedom has the same core values as the Creed. So, your comparison is irrelevant.
@@tinylittlegiant
*>"eventually, story-wise, Edward still became a proper Assassin"
@@FraserSouris very fine reply, excuse my first impression, it wasn't very understanding.
My main point is that i see AC as more of a whole as i also explore the lores from the novels and other media too.
The new games, typically Valhalla, just feel disconnected to me so i don't dig really deep into them as much as the older ones.
Can't wait for the sequel, Assassin's Creed: Drift King
i get this is a joke and all but imagine your assasin character driving a car really fast and pouncing on another car and stabbing the guy inside while the car crashes and explodes and you escape into the shadows as the car burns with all the evidence inside
@@johnnyplto5592 that could have been a modern day sequence
@@yamum7208 ubisoft should get their shit together and actually do it
And it sequel
The Assassin and the creed
@@johnnyplto5592 but they got the crew tho
I feel a lot of sympathy seeing old AC fans grieve over the series. I have only played a few of the newer games after getting them for very cheap on sale, so I don't really care what they do with the series. But I understand the pain of seeing something you love change completely
You should play the old games, especially the Ezio games and you’ll understand how special Assassin’s Creed was to us back in the day. You can pick up The Ezio Collection and play the remasters.
What’s the problem with AC?? I’ve played them all and I’ve platinumed them all, so I’ve spent 1000s of hours playing them all. And in my opinion, since Origins, AC has improved. The franchise needed to go in a different direction, Origins Odyssey and Valhalla has done that.
Whilst I appreciate the last 3 games aren’t for everybody, there are still MANY people out there that do enjoy them. Since Origins people have seen a change in AC, they know what game they are buying and if they don’t like it simply don’t buy it.
The only thing I’m not keen on, or not entirely sure how I feel about it yet, is the AC Infinity live service game. I’m a solo player, I enjoy single player story driven games, multiplayer is not my thing. So I don’t know how I feel about this. If I can do everything solo that doesn’t require playing with other people then I’m fine with it, I’ll just do my own thing.
Yeah, let's keep making the exact same game, over and over, with a slightly different setting. Let's ask telltale how that turned out.
Same, I never was a huge AC fan, but I do like the newer games. However, even I can see quickly that it’s just not the same anymore.
Even good things have to end or be changed with time, but I don’t think Ubisoft should sell them as being the same (by still naming them „Assassin's Creed“)
@@86Fallowcp no duh
Assassin's Creed only makes sense if we have a creed of assassins. With all the new technology, Assassin's Creed 2 could be a lot more immersive, more interesting. As a stealth game, it should stay stealth.
Ubisoft removed some parts from the games and added new parts
but the assassins creed ship is not a ship anymore it is a boat
this is why fans are angry from Assassins Creed Valhalla and upcoming Assassins Creed Infinishit
No, it doesn't. No, it couldn't. No, it shouldn't. You are so close minded, that's insane
It is a stealth game if you chose to play it that way. Also, archery is stealth. The earlier games took place when archery was replaced with firearms, so stealth appeared different, anything stealth based game before firearms should include archery as a core feature.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely.
Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong.
AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced.
Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players.
Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again.
Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste.
All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did.
"The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case.
"The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical
As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game?
Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings.
Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
I don’t care what they do, so long as they stop making the protagonists part time assassins. They either are or aren’t assassins. If they are, then they need to follow the creed as it was laid out in AC1.
I hated that Black Flag made Edward some part time assassin. It was the reason that I stopped playing these games. I eventually got Origin and Odyssey dirt cheap.. and it was nice that nobody was pretending to be an assassin when they obviously couldn’t care less about the creed.
What I miss the most, is having to be aware of how something could be climbed. There were some problem with it here and there.. but it added something to the experience.
The Mako in Mass Effect 1 is what the vehicular version of climbing in modern AC games would be.
it’s sad that watch dogs has become more assassins creed than assassins creed
Wow! I really hadn't thought of it that way but you're right!
@@ChaosRaych well Watchdogs doesn't have social Stealth , Assassin Bureaus , Memory Corridors ، Eagle vision ... So...
Maybe they should just switch Title names and end the chaos
Ghost of tushima was a better assassin's Creed game than Valhalla
@@jmorel42 bruh as far as I know ghost of Tsushima doesn't actually assassins nor hidden blade nor Social Stealth nor modern day so NO IT'S NOT
I used to think Assassin's Creed was a tragedy... now I realise... it's a comedy!
😂😂😂😂😂I agree with is on so many levels
I understand that reference 🙌
BO BURNham REFERENCE !!!!!!!
@@kyrolamelo1355 ...I-its not...you know what? Nevermind.
i know its the Joker reference
but the first time i read it, i remembered bo burnham song called sad
it says “The world isn’t sad, The world is funny! IMMA SOCIOPATH!!!!!!”
They could've simply divided it like this:
Assassin's Creed; stealth
Abstergo: whatever they did since origins
Split the franchise in two
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely.
Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong.
AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced.
Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players.
Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again.
Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste.
All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did.
"The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case.
"The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical
As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game?
Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings.
Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
@@FraserSouris Because it’s a big bloated world with nothing new and origins is the only one where you play as an assassin
@@Sevren_ *>"Because it’s a big bloated world with nothing new ""origins is the only one where you play as an assassin"
@@FraserSouris Ig enjoy your shitty voice acting and story…
@@FraserSouris you made valid points. Personally I just stopped playing AC after Origins as I don't like the direction they're taking the franchise in and dislike the rpg elements as I feel like they are poorly done.
Imagine the heartbreak Patrice Desilets is experiencing as he watches Ubisoft butcher this series.
He doesn't even pay attention anymore.
Imagine Tom Clancy
The ironic thing is that AC is better now
@Dalton Frazier Funnily the series finally has better gameplay without him
Wish he came back
I just wish they wouldn’t call it’s assassins creed anymore
Assassins assassinate people. Don’t confuse stealth and assassinate.
They can sell more of it this way so they won't change it, sadly.
they should create a spinoff series for historical figures who aren't assassins
@@shinobifirecracker6671 there's so much more to that
@@shinobifirecracker6671 that's not the point
Well, if it still looks like the original ship and functions like the original ship, it is effectively the same ship. Which cannot be said about Assassins Creed lol
Man, you solve a century puzzle.
But then, is it the original or a faithful copy of the original? Yeah, assassin's creed sucks.
@@Player-re9mo with that analogy, we could say that ghost of tsuchima is assassin's creed.
You are, technically, a walking, breathing ship of Theseus. Every few years or so, every single cell on your body was completely replaced by new ones. Your old body is out there in the form of urine, feces, skin residues, etc. It's crazy to think about that.
@@gabehere i think that the brain cells still are the same, or im wrong ?
Assassins Creed died with Desmond. He was the story. Ezio Altair and Connors stories all had meaning and direction based on the modern day goal of Desmond and his crew.
Couldn’t agree more
100% facts
@Creed ASSassins I agree that the series could have taken a different and interesting turn but given that it didn’t I stand by the statement that it died with Desmond. Even if they try to go back now they’ve broken too much canon with the recent ones, it’s done
@Tim C Desmond actually shows up in Valhalla. But its in such a way that if you never played any of the games with desmond. Or if you just don't recognize Nolan Norths voice then you might miss it.
@@RossG99 what Canon have they broke? Seems to have remained intact to me.
You literally could say the same for Rainbow six heck even Tom Clancy's games in general currently.
@Ian Corey thats a bit over exageration. recently we seen BF and Halo doing what made them what they are.
I agree. Especially after watching the XDeviant trailer
@@monishvj5172 BF is going futuristic with grappling hooks and electric storms...hardly going back to its roots. Halo Infinite might be...still looks like a mix of Halo 3 and Halo 5 which is fine imo. I dont expect a series to say the same or even keep the same vibe. I just want a solid experience. Titanfall 1 and Titanfall 2 is a prime exanple of how a game can change and evolve but still be a solid series.
@@GoldLBSyes but along with ww2 and modern military with portal. when I am talking about BF I am talking about bf 2042 portal , it is the closest thing to mods in bf right now. bf used to have great player created experience now they are doing just that so far. also the monetization so far dont have pay walls for content. this is how gaming used to be 15 years ago.
Dude rip tom Clancy games :'(
Ship of Theseus in no way applies to AC. The entire idea of the thought experiment is that the replaced part are the same as the originals. If a person was to see the original boat and then see it 10 years later after all the parts were replaced, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. That's obviously not the case with AC. AC is more like if your pet dog dies and you get a new one that's a completely different breed and give it the same name as the original one.
Not really. I've heard it described where the planks are different wood types or painted a new color.
@@Frogman1212 In that case, the structure of the ship is still the same. Kind of like the original Demons Souls vs the Bluepoint remake. I still don't think that really applies because Ubisoft was, as far as I can tell consciously trying to change things up as opposed to serving up more of the same game after game.
Imma assume he just watched wandavision and wanted to use that. Lol.
@@atquinn1975 good point on the Bluepoint remake. I guess a better comparison would be the first 3 Resident Evils and then 4 and up. Which the survival horror fans criticis too. They switched to 1st person camera at 7 but they at least returned to being Survival Horror.
Or if you get the Theseus ship, remove the sail, add some wheels and now you have a bigg cariage... IT's still a vehicle, it moves, has the same name, but it is no longer a ship!
Assassin's Creed Without Assassins, yes, its still a game, but it isn't the same thing.
Valhalla is the only Assassins creed game I haven’t finished cause it’s so boring. It’s just a bland world without a soul.
So was odyssey
Same here bro. After 20 hrs I couldn't keep going. This from someone who loved Origins and put in 180hrs to complete whole game plus all dlc and also put in 220hrs to do the same in odyssey. It all comes down to the world being too big, too empty with not enough variety to offer for the playtime it's designed to complete the game. Every area in the map looks exactly the same which I think is also one of the biggest problems. The fighting leveling system is messed up because after only 20hrs of doing some side stuff you end up so over levelled that you burn though enemies like hot knife through butter with 0 challenge.
I went and 100%ed every AC game before valhalla came out, i made sure every game had that hundo on the save file (all achievements was what i did for origins and odyssey since theres repeatable stuff) but i couldnt finish Valhalla. I wasnt having fun in a different way than i was when collecting all the treasures in brotherhood or flipping the same region 10 times to level up in odyssey. I enjoyed playing the game enough to do monotonous shit but not with valhalla
Literally same, it’s so bad. I loved both origins and especially odyssey but Valhalla is just absolutely terrible, you can’t even clear out forts in stealth mode anymore it’s literally been made to be raided only
@@fiel81 Valhalla was boring but Odyssey was fun as hell as an rpg set in Ancient Greece I had a blast, and I felt like the world was being lived in more than a lot of other games imo.
Because they can't possibly sell a game called "ASS".
Rest in peace, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings.
Thank god there is at least a few developers out there (like Fromsoftware) that don't sacrifice their fanbase for a larger target audience
Thats the thing about Japan. If a creative decision flops in one entry. They will diligently return to the fans or go out on a limb for the fans.
Others in AAA I wonder if theyre too focus grouped, or are in a awkward dance with the playerbase where they really wanted to make/sell something else.
@@Ghost_Text but see for some reason Ubisoft thinks that what ever u want to call Valhalla, is selling well (BECAUSE OF MICRO TRANSACTIONS) that this is way to go so they won’t ever return back to the AC we all know and love so for that reason i will never touch another game.
@@sero2682 Video games crossed a dangerous threshold when they started making more than blockbuster films. The sharks that encouraged overly corporatized design took notice.
The rise of Zynga was like a final nail in the coffin. Its hard to make a genuine title oriented around mastering systems, with all these interactive mini casinos setting the norm.
@@Ghost_Text beautifully articulated.
if Bioware and CDPR taught me anything, is to not trust anyone blindly.
Should be called "Infinity Greed"
A Dollar story
Assassins greed: infinity
Nothing is free, everything is microtransactions.
Assassin’s Greed.
Revelations: The adopted child of the franchise and always underappreciated.
Because it was not good.
Revelations is amazing in it's art direction and soundtrack, with great concepts, but the map falls flat, gameplay leaves much to be desired, and story was poor. I mean after brotherhood, you'd think that 16 would atleast know something important, but nope. Thank god Darby left, because he never really cared. Just lied and fools many. Revelations is proof of this.
@@johnwerner6445 Better than anything the series has put out since Black Flag
@@chrismoore5333 Revelations has the best moment in the whole series
@@Conorp77 I disagree, as do many. But I respect your opinion. However darbys top tier writing made a joke of 16 and the modern day story, and frankly wasted altier. Mot to mention animis island only barely makes any sense at all. He's also the goon who introduced people being born again. Something that at the time felt very stupid.
I just ordered the ezio collection to experience that old assassins creed style
Hell yea dude, ac revelations is really underrated
It's so good
@@fiel81 Ahhhh a man of culture. Revelations is still my favorite Assassin’s Creed to this day
Have fun with them. If only I could play through them for the first time again…
Enjoy it
Unity was the last real AC in my opinion
But it got butchered prematurely 😩…
Syndicate and Rogue too. Even though syndicate was annoyingly campy
@@illustriousindividual1077 Rouge came before Unity, didn't it? And I not sure about Syndicate from the few hours I did play of it, it didn't feel like the previous AC games to me
Honestly, as time goes by, I think more and more are coming to appreciate Unity A LOT and in hindsight see that despite it's buggy release, as an AC game it was true to the franchise and the same can't really be said for a lot of the recent releases
@@Scoooobyful Unity had the best parkour in the entire franchise. Syndicate as well since it was basically built off the back of Unity.
17:22, I have to disagree with that comparison between AC and GTA. While the games have changed and evolved throughout the decade, the core of GTA has largely remained the same, a crime, sandbox filled with carnage and mayhem. Assassin's Creed has transitioned into an entirely different genre. It's been 3 games since we have played an actual assassin. I feel like Assassin's Creed has had similar treatment to one of Ubisoft's other games, Far Cry. It's just become another sandbox game with little focus.
Very true.
Not really true. Everything with Orgin’s on was before the Assassins and was about what led to the Assassins, what led to the Templars, and about the ISU bloodline. It’s not a different genre it’s a just a different style.
@@garrettgoppert7804 Yes it is. Back then it was an action adventure and not an rpg.
@@Hexenkind1 games change styles like I said. That’s like saying elder scrolls online is not a elder scrolls game because this one is open world or these are not real Farcry games because it’s not the original styles.
@@garrettgoppert7804 No it is not. RPG is a different genre then an action adventure, naturally if that changes it is a different game in many aspects. It is not the same thing anymore. Without a doubt. And you feel it in every second if you play the old ones and the new ones now.
Just makes me so sad. My favourite series, the one thing I looked forward to after a stressful day of school and they destroy it in front of me over an agonizing period of a few years.
Yep kinda of like what Biden is doing to America
@@robertbarger6439 Biden was the clear lesser of two evils. Trump was a narcissistic knob.
Ezio and Connor legit saved my life after my girlfriend used me, left me for dead and took nearly all of my friends and basically world. I had another world though... That's what immersion is all about, it can take you out into another world. The new franchise can't maintain any immersion for me, they just feel like games and immersive games aren't supposed to feel like games.
I feel your pain, only with Halo instead of AC. Though I am still very sad about AC changing. I do like Origins and Odyssey to an extent but, it's just not the same to me. There were already too few stealth games on the market, now there's even less.
I still don’t understand why they went the RPG route, why not go to the red dead, action/ adventure open world, if they blended the red dead series and the Assassins creed series (before syndicate) it probably would become the best game on the current gen of consoles in terms of graphics, story, side content and characters
Less work, roughly equal outcome. Think about how long it takes to create something like red dead vs how often assassin's creed games have been put out
Because the RPG facilitated the transition from AAA single-player, to an 'incomplete SP', to Lite Service, down to outright Live Service.
In a similar way, I feel the same way about games such as Gotham Knights.
AC always had RPG elements. See AC2 and how it introduced the gear system. Going RPG also makes many systems more worthwhile.
RPG’s done right are great but if there done half assed they fall flat on their face just like all 3 of these games have done in varying amounts, as pretty much every one has noticed the RPG assassins creed games haven’t done anything better than what their inspiration is, Witcher 3 does the RPG side better and the older ac games has better stories, there isn’t one special thing about these games
But if they went the action/ adventure open world route they can work on a quality game with a great story that can be expanded, characters that can be explored over many games, parkour that can make the in between moments of the game fun and exciting just like the web swinging mechanic in Spider-Man and unlike gta where your driving car with no creativity. Yes we wouldn’t get an Assassins creed every year, but look at rockstar, if it works for them it would work for Ubisoft, especially with how big the Assassins creed brand is now
For me the Assassin's Creed I knew and loved ended with both Unity and Syndicate, which are both my personal favourites of the series, as well as the most underrated.
Very true
I liked Syndicate. I really dig the late 1800s London vibe that it had. It's actually the only Assassin's Creed I ever finished.
Syndicate was shit
Bro what the series was terrible at that point? It ended with blackflag
Yah the world of syndicate is my favorite and the gameplay of unity is my favorite
I'd never played an AC game before. During the summer sale, I bought all the games except the 3 newer ones. I started with 1 and am almost to Brotherhood now and LOVE it. Super excited to get to Black Flag. But honestly the newer 3 don't intrigue me all that much because they don't look like what I'm currently enjoying at allm
Of the three "new" AC titles, Origins is still pretty good. While lacking social stealth, atleast it sticks to the themes of the series, and Bayek's a really great character. Odyssey is a pretty good game... if it wasn't marketed as an AC title. Valhalla is kinda alright
@@fitzviandraduivenab2790 1 thing I never get is how people call odyssey better then Valhalla, odyssey has been easily the worse game in the series in terms of gameplay, story, and graphics (for its time).
In odyssey, it’s trying to be a mmo with micro transactions for loot boxes and randomly generated gear. The skills are pretty cool, but you never use half of them because there are only a few good ones. Also people always say the stealth is better, when it didn’t have social stealth, hiding in bushes, or even a hidden blade. The only 1 up on Valhalla for stealth I can think of is that icarus can see enemies through walls so you can plan routes.
In Valhalla, the loot pool is more like AC2 and onward. It’s loot that is curated and put in the same place every time. Sure there’s more loot then the AC2 but that’s a given because it’s more of an RPG then the older games were. Also the stealth has everything I said before. How do you even try to replicate being an assassins without a hidden blade. And I don’t remember many times in Odyssey when you were given the option to stealth, usually you just thought, maybe I can stealth this, and usually it failed.
The story in odyssey is the worst in the series. It’s only purpose was in the Atlantis dlc that set up Valhalla. What happened to the cult, dead, what happened to the apples, gone. It didn’t even set up the origin of the Templar’s except maybe showing the beginning of the ideology. Also, there were way to many just random magical bosses, don’t get me wrong they are fun to fight, but from a story perspective, why are there so many apples in Greece.
In Valhalla the story sets up the future of the franchise. literally shows the beginning of the Templar’s, shows what led the hidden ones to becoming assassins, and also shows that there’s way more “reincarnations” then we initially thought. Not to mention that the new protagonist for the next 3 games or so was shown, and the goal of that protagonist. The whole Asgard and Jotunheimr arc were needed to again, show the new protagonists motivations, and how the reincarnations started and worked. The “magical” bosses, while I am bothered that the only non drug caused boss is the final boss in wrath, were only in the Asgard arc, plus two in wrath.
Graphically, odyssey looks like origins, like I can barely tell the difference. The world looks better because it’s not mostly a desert. The water looks better because again, it’s not a desert. The buildings look pretty good actually, but some of the animations are terrible, especially alexios’s. Also in many cutscenes people just stood still and talked.
In AC Valhalla, on next gen, the game looks ahead of its time for an open world rpg. On current gen the game still looks pretty good, even with the frame problems. The animations were amazing, no characters were just standing still in cutscenes, they were always gesturing with their hands, moving their heads, pacing, not just standing still.
Finally, the voices are amazing in Valhalla, female eivor and kassandra are canon, and you can really tell that the VA tried hard for them. Kassandra was really good, loved it. Eivor sounded like she had her throat torn at the beginning, maybe because the wolves literally did that or maybe because she was the proud warrior of the ravens clan. Later on, she softened her tone, became more of a leader. Alexios sounded like garbage, always. Male eivor sounds good, like a poet, a nice change from what Vikings are portrayed like sounding. But his voice didn’t change over the story so I still think Female eivor wins there.
TLDR: I get how people can see odyssey is a good game, but I don’t see how Valhalla is a bad game, or even worse then odyssey.
@Tom Ffrench a good assassins creed game it does. If you don’t have any relation to assassins or Templar’s or isu. You can’t call it assassins creed. The more of it the better
Assassins Creed is becoming the Fast and Furious of gaming
That's why the main theme song is called "Ezio's Family" lol
Well unlike Fast and the furious AC now is still the same game story wise as it was in AC1.
Fast went from being movies about racing to what ever the fuck it is now lol
I was a assassins creed fan from the start and with the idea of infinity this is where i step off Odyssey and valhalla were not ac games and now this looks even worse. Ubisoft should look at how Hitman has retained what it is and still advanced or how Disohonred advanced without sacrificing what it was total war has always been total war even with advancements. Ubisoft is blinded by money and can not see that you can still be successful if you follow the core elements of your franchise.
Just give it a chance. anyways it's not coming out until 2024 I think
"total war has always been total war even with advancements" ehhhhhh kinda right and wrong, they just add old mechanics they have remove in the new games
Ubisoft should also figure out how to not sexually harass their employees
I hope Infinity will just be it's own thing with updates while they keep making more main title games, and they use infinity to make plots that they normally wouldn't with main titles. So in the future it could be one of the best things done for the series.
Fans want a Shao Jun story? Not going to happen in the main series! But hell put it in infinity! Sequel for Arno? Put it in infinity!
I just hope and hope, hope hope they keep making more installments while infinity can be our ever refilling appetizers for the next games without having to wait. Hell, it infinity could be a great thing to keep us entertained and still satisfied if they decided to make a AC game that will take more years to make. If Ubisoft cares then infinity would be a highly treasured thing they could have done for the series.
I just subconsciously relate Assassins Creed news nowadays to instant depression. The Ubisoft allegations don't help either
4:21 "I have a degree in corporate finance." Oh you don't have to tell me, the hair told me first. ;)
You've been flirting with a full AC Valhalla review for months now 😂🤣
Well he already did a massive critique for the game way back when.
@@Hexenkind1 no he didn't.
Oops. Lol I put the dang wrong game 🤣
@@thirstfen Now it makes more sense.^^
@@thirstfen no you didn’t you were right. He never did a full Critique or review of Valhalla yet
I was SOOOO into valhalla int he first hours, but when I realized the first hours would already show me everithing in terms of gameplay and even narative I go to sad. if the same game was a third of the sizd it would already be a better game than it is now
I put 180 hours into it b4 I quit playing just got boring haven't played it in over 5 months I keep playing all the old ones these our assassin creed games to me
This is the primary problem with the new AC games. Odyssey was similar. The games aren't *bad* by any means, but that said, you can have too much of a good thing, and this is certainly that. The games are just bloated, aimless and repetitive. Cramming as much as you can into a game for the sake of it isn't always a good thing, and more doesn't equal better. Sure, that works in a game like Skyrim because the sandbox *is* the heart of the game. Something like AC Valhalla on the other hand tries to be multiple things at once, and so comes short in each of these things.
The GTA comparison isn't a good reference man, because the original Gta is not what made it good, assassins creed has completely changed and missed what made it assassins creed in the first place
It's changed for the better IMO. And people have always complained about the AC games. I think the only universally loved one was 2 and I doubt that holds up as well. Counter heavy combat and lots of dull tailing missions? No thank you.
LOL I was just about to post this. That comparison was soooooo cringe. This guy still walking on eggshells smh. Pretty much all the core AC fan youtubers have bent the knee to ubisoft. He even tried to distance himself from the few that still speak their minds(Lazzers, masterassassin, fizhy). He not trying to lose them free advanced copies smh. His ship analogy was trash as well. His infinity critique was the worst. He know damn well ubisoft is gonna turn it into a micro transaction land field. He accidentally admitted that this is the direction they were pushing it in lol. You know it's gonna require that you be connected online too. That's the last thing you want ubisoft to have. Last but not least, he said "the best development teams coming together". Ubisoft Quebec created syndicate and odyssey. The two wackest, senseless, wacky, bizarre "AC" games smh. Montreal were around before ubisoft fired the creator. They actually love the series and know the lore. But the main guys were fired or quit. So this is definitely gonna be a mess.
@@bigpileofpuke but that's the thing, changes are good. It's just ubisoft missed the target by a long shot. They literally used witcher 3 as a reference for their new AC designs instead of using hitman as a reference or MGS. Those games aged well and hitman 3 despite the short campaign is still highly replayable. An assassination/espionage game should have decent direct combat encounter and mainly focus on much slower methodical assassination gameplay. And yes, many people complaint about AC games but a) it's mainly because most AC games were released broken and b) at the very least they won't deny that it's still an AC games.
@@bigpileofpuke and the difference between GTA and AC changes is that GTA despite the changes, still is a game about guns,drugs and stealing cars but AC went from assassination with style to the frickin Witcher. There's a clear difference there. The thing is I would be very welcome from ubisoft to change AC format. And they at least once were successfully doing so with AC chronicles but was completely ignored by the Ubisoft since it's not triple A material enough. So yeah, poor assassination and stealth gameplay with padded out repetitive content? No thank you.
@@freddice8156 If any game should have taken reference from those it's the horrible Wildlands and Breakpoint games. The modern AC games are masterpieces compared to those. Different strokes for different folks. Ubisoft can't please everybody. AC still sells incredibly well so lots of people, including me, like the changes to the last 3 AC games. They're far from perfect, but they're solid 7.5-8/10 open world action adventures. If I replayed the older AC games I'd probably rate them 6-7/10. Like I said before, I'm so over that easy counter-heavy combat and dull tailing missions. I got AC3 Remastered for free which I want to eventually play but I remember people bitching about that when it came out.
I enjoyed the series up to Origins but hated Odyssey it for the most part had nothing to do with Assassins Creed. I enjoyed Valhalla but it was too damn long and really felt like they were trying to please too many people.
YES!! I've been saying this since the release of Valhalla. It's a decent standalone game but bc I was expecting an AC game, I was very disappointed.
Its not even a good stand alone game. The name doesnt matter.
@@oh-not-the-bees7872 yeah, not even decent, I would call it bad
Perhaps they're just using the name because mOuney
Ac Unity is the best modern day assassins creed game now that the bugs and all the issues have been fixed. It FEELS like assassins creed, it’s for the best parkour, great stealth, Paris is a beautiful and amazing setting, it’s for the brotherhood and templars in it, you actually feel like an assassin and it’s got great combat that’s actually challenging.
It doesn’t deserve the hate it was only bad at launch. It’s the best ac game since brotherhood and 2 and it’s better then every new ac game that’s come out since.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely.
Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong.
AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced.
Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players.
Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again.
Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste.
All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did.
"The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case.
"The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical
As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game?
Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings.
Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
The game that killed this franchise was syndicate. In other words Quebec
syndicate was fun tho
Why?
No, syndicate furthered the staleness feeling for classic AC, that's why I think it's part of why they changed it after that. But yknow you couldve just NOT released games every year for ficks sake staleing the market
@@zhikos_6441
Ac syndicate was shit
Shit parkour, shit story.
Jacob was an idiot, evie was okay
Crawford starrick was bad villain
Very forgettable game.
Ruined is such an overstatement it's not even funny
I became a fan through AC Odyssey. Loved the rpg focus. But i feel for older fans. I wish Ubisoft would make side games in an older style to give those fans something as well.
Eerily similar to what happened with Saints Row 4
I tried odyssey but I felt like it was made by someone who was described what an RPG is but had never actually seen an RPG. Then again I started playing it right after I finished the witcher 3 so it was obvious to me that they were trying to copy it but didn't have the know how to pull it off. Respect if you liked it though I'm glad that you enjoyed it
Atleast thts wat yakuza is doing
@@shaunhubvk The funny thing is that it actually does better RPG things than the WItcher 3. Gear, abilities and quest reward scaling is much better
The old fans have 13 (including spin-offs) worth of games to play. RPG fans so far have had 3.
God dude this series was my jam in middle school and high school and I still find myself revisiting the older games all the time but this series is a complete shell of its former self I really wish it would just either end or go back to its roots which I totally doubt would ever happen sooooo please just end at this point
Why you wish that ? You do realize that there's Millions and millions of people than enjoy the newer games and look forward to EVREY release right ? Stop being selfish and move on
@@mrmeme2917 "stop being selfish and move on" if something you loved completely changed, and became something it wasn't, would you just "move on"
@@cairosubside3272 yes if it's not for me anymore I would just move on and not complain on twitter for the rest of my life ! Plus I don't think Ubi will listen to 5% crying on twitter anyway so this is just a waste of time
@@mrmeme2917 this is TH-cam mate, not twitter. And he is speaking for himself, he most likely knows that Ubisoft don't care about his thoughts. He is just saying how heartbroken he is. Quit being an ass!
To all of my fellow comrades who started playing Assassin's Creed back in 2007 and remember what this franchise was... I salute you
I remember what it was and it's better than ever
Assassin's creed died in AC3 when they killed Desmond and the modern story. After that it has become a madden/2k style game. Yearly releases with no/limited upgrades.
No1 cares about the modern story
@@TheBasedBalkan not anymore due to ac3. Before that tho thats what sold the game. Templars vs assassin throughout time and now culminates to modern times. Have you even played the early games? 🤣🤣🤣
Black flag was pretty good imo
@@GForceIntel how is walking around w a fucking tablet w diolouge fun?
It was a yearly release before ac3 what are you talking about
If you've played the first 2 hours, you've played the entire game, because the story wont keep you engaged, same with WD:Legion.
The classic Ubisoft design. Giant open worlds where one hour of exploration has shown you all the game has to offer
Yeah basically ubisoft games are the only games i can consistantly say "if you didnt like the first 4 hours get a refund. Mostly its going to be just repeating the same 4 hours for 150hours. "
i played odyssey like 6 hours on the free weekend and bought it then for 17€. Now a year later I have 24 hours and most of that time the gameplay sucked (fighting isn't fun like it was in origins) but at lwast it is my vacation simulator in covid times lmao
The story is the only reason i play the games. If it wasn't for the story i would have stopped playing after brotherhood.
To me it was the other way around. I thought the story was what kept me engaged. The gameplay was goddamm repetitive and boring but I kept playing because I wanted to know what was happening next. I was very happy when I saw that they are kinda taking it back to the modern plot. And the whole ending section was really great to me
This made me want to go back and play Assassin's Creed 2.
It's not as good as you remember.
@Ciel Phantomhive Gokuson It just depends on what you want from games. I like the ridiculously huge worlds of the new AC games and even though the combat is just okay, I still find it more satisfying than the old AC's easy counter-heavy combat (which I liked back in the day).
@@bigpileofpuke So, you like easy, not challenging, lmao
@@cutthatcoconut9018 Wait, you thought the old AC games were challenging? They were way easier than the new AC games.
@@bigpileofpuke lmao SO untrue. Barely died in odyssey nor valhalla. Asaasins creed ezio trilogy, kenway family, and Altair were all challenging and fun.
Assasins Creed Unity was the last of the franchise that made me feel like it was an AC game. Not to say Origins wasn't good cause imho it was a work of art but could have been better if Aya was the main character since she is Amunet and would be a sweet nod to the actual Origins of the brotherhood.
No one likes Aya so no.
Out of all the criticism that someone can give for Origins, your complaint is Aya not being the main character. What a fuckin idiot
@@johnwerner6445that's your opinion.
@@IamSupreme333 the bigger idiot is the one crying about someone having a different opinion. You and your friend are so soft, why get triggered at all?
@@howiethehowitzer7398 No its more like fact. No one likes Aya
It's like when one of your favorite bands releases an album every year or two. The band progresses musically and while each subsequent album release is similar to the last it's still a little different. To the point, when you compare the jump from album 1 to album 5, there is no similarities with a big difference in sound, writing or technique, the music is almost unrecognizable and as a result is the music doesn't feel the same to you. You still like their older material but don't like the new stuff.
sounds like a Maroon 5 to me, lol
@@imamfn more like blink 182 who were punk that mutated into pop boy band trash
“I thought odyssey was okay” my man spent like 7 hours GUSHING over that game come on Stephen you love it
word right?
"I play both sides so I always come out on top" - Lukiepoo
The shorter version is "Trigger's Broom"
That said I never played any previous games except Odyessy and Ioved that, simply for being able walk around ancient Greece.
Whatever….I just want them to remake AC1 and the Ezio trilogy
yes, will never happen but 2 with good graphics (i am fine with ac unity level) and gameplay elements of unity would be the dream... and then we got that crap edition remaster
Finally someone is give AC1 and the OG Altiar some respect
I want an ac remake where its one of them remakes that doubles as a remaster as well.
So take AC1 put it in Valhalla's engine and remake the game from there. With all the current mechanics.
And for those that hate the new games. Then you would also have a remastered version of AC1 where its the exact same game as the original AC1. But with better graphics and improved mechanics like AC3 remastered did
You could say the same of practically any franchise right now. The future of gaming sadly is becoming just a corporate money grab to as wide of an audience as possible, leaving the original core audience abused and neglected.
In a series where the Templars are only actual Knights Templar in a single game we complain that the Assassins aren't always literal Assassins. Fans need to stop claiming ownership of something that's not theirs to own.
i literally couldnt play AC Valhalla because i was absolutely shocked that there wasn’t even proper cutscenes. in such a big game, there’s about an hour of cutscenes. i was shocked.
I wish Ubisoft would drop the Assassins Creed name and metanarrative. Making a bunch of fun, mostly historically accurate, open world action games with little to nothing explicitly linking them together (or a just central hub area like you think infinity will be) may work better.
Mostly historically accurate lmao
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely.
Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong.
AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced.
Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players.
Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again.
Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste.
All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did.
"The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case.
"The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical
As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game?
Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings.
Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
@@oh-not-the-bees7872 well That's the point of the modern day parts. For story purposes when using the animus we're seeing the true history of the world according to the AC universe.
Just want to say I love your videos. They are so well crafted and entertaining. I get so excited each time one pops up!
Black flag is probably in my top 5 games ever
I'm not really a fan of Black Flag but the ending is just beautiful in such a mature way it almost feels out of place yet so very earned. It's a great ending.
The only thing I spell assassin’s creed Valhalla, that I don’t like, is the lack of new game plus or to be able to replay missions odyssey was a really good game in my opinion and origins was good. I only played a little bit of it. And those games are more like RPG’s, but I like open world RPG’s so I have no problem with it.
I like Valhalla, however it isn't even assassin's creed anymore, I believe they should just scrap the series and just move forward with the action RPG style game that the devs are clearly more interested in making.
Not the devs, it's ubisoft. They fired the creator a while back and took it from him. His dev team stayed and ubisoft have been directing ever sense smh.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely.
Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong.
AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced.
Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players.
Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again.
Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste.
All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did.
"The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case.
"The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical
As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game?
Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings.
Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
@@FraserSouris Understandable, have a great day.
I know a bloke who is a road sweeper, and hrs used the same sweeper for the last 22 yes. He's changed the head 8 times and the handle 3 times. And he's very proud of it, bless em
Damn. Seeing the shaven you made me clutch my pearls. 🔥
Probably the most genuine gaming journalism channel out there!
i was thinking the exact same thing. i recently started playing throught ac 2 and it is a far cry from somthing like origins and it really upsets me. keep up the great work luke
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely.
Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong.
AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced.
Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players.
Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again.
Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste.
All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did.
"The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case.
"The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical
As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game?
Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings.
Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
@@FraserSouris I couldn't agree more! This comment DESERVES to be seen much more!
I actually got Valhalla as a deal pretty shortly after release. On the PSN store it was bundled with Odyssey and Origins for the same $60 tag.
Then I realized the commitment of completing even ONE of these games, and to be honest, I played Odyssey the most, and I've barely even come close to finishing it.
I got really bored with Valhalla, really quickly. I didn't find the world that interesting and it didn't feel right.
I’ve played every single game, love pretty much all of them, Brotherhood is my favorite, it was black flag where I realized the true fun of the franchise, I remember playing that and thinking this doesn’t feel like assassins, but then I thought it’s a fuckin awesome pirate game… that’s when it clicked, I just enjoy every game for what it is, historical action adventure games, I don’t feel the need to desperately cling to the it’s gotta be stabby stealthy white hoods every time! Honestly that would kinda get old… I think the variety is fine… plus the modern games have arguably better stealth mechanics than the old ones (if you choose to build your char that way) the main thing they had was crowd stealth which was awesome, but at least in the modern games there’s an actual crouch button with many ways and tools to approach enemies. Idk maybe I’m easy to please but, having a fun adventure through historical settings is enough for me lol
Actual conversations and thinking is why I enjoy this channel. Not because I specifically agree with all of Lukes opinions, but more the fact he takes a chance to make these videos in the first place. Original thought or conversation is not super popular on TH-cam (I know anyone reading this is shocked to hear). I stubbornly do opinion pieces myself, so respect the work :)
I can see your point but I'm in general no fan of RPGs nor Fantasy stuff
What fantasy stuff? This is a sci-fi game not a fantasy game. There is no magic or actual mythical creatures. Anything that you think is magic is actually just a piece of eden.
All the mythical creatures you see are just Isu science experiments.
@@brandonpick1486 Bullshit, 'ISU experiments and piece of edens" nowdays it's only an excuse from Ubisoft to put fantasy thinks in the game.
Season 1: Desmond Arc (up to 3)
Season 2: Nameless protag arc (4-Syndicate)
Season 3: Leila Arc (Origins-Valhala)
Season 4: probably new protag or nameless protagonist (Infinity)
Spin-Off series (Chronicles games)
Bro people try the "just give it a chance" shtick with every new game that ends up being shit. Every time. Predictions happen based on the past. There is every reason to shit on the same pattern we've seen destroy many franchises.
I mean judging a game that is 5 years away is fucking dumb tho
@@mrmeme2917 Nah. Same patterns. Same result. In 5 years you'll be quiet and I'll be going through this again. COD, Avengers, Cyberpunk, on and on and on.
@@Frogman1212 Yeah don't think so buddy , the game could be trash or it could be the best AC yet we don't even what it is and people are already crying 🤦🏼
@@mrmeme2917 I've heard this before buddy. Here's some cartoons for _you_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀💀💀🤯🤯🤯🤯
@@Frogman1212 🤦🏼
Amen. Fully agree. Great and realistic insight. Thanks!
it’s really really funny to me that assassin’s creed: ORIGINS, has prequels
... wow, I did not think about that
That’s why I couldn’t stand the games that came after…still gave them a chance because of the name Assassins Creed
that intro analogy is such a beautiful way to look at the franchise
Sounds like the Assassins Creed franchise is going the way of the elder scrolls. In terms of the makers no longer caring to appeal to the original fanbase and instead aiming for more broad appeal.
That's what you get because of hating on AC Unity and Syndicate! The best of the old gameplay of ACs
It's not the developer you should be mad at it's the company that owns the developers that you should be mad at.
They are the ones who are thinking about the money and not the fans.
The developers get shafted on almost every game that exists.
Even Origins was somewhat grounded. The DLC when Bayek goes to the Duat, it’s more like a dream, representing the fact that he is still seeking to find a way to bring his son back I think. In the end it was all an illusion shared by most of Egypt but informed Bayek of this fact, that he still needed some closure. From what I understand Curse of the Pharaohs actually takes place before The Hidden Ones which is the last chapter of Bayek’s adventures apparently. This is why for me Odyssey is when the franchise truly lost itself. Nothing in Aaru looked lived in, it all looked like it served a purpose to Bayek’s journey. There was no politics like there was in the Greek Underworld, just moral and spiritual beats.
Because if they called it anything else people would still bitch it not being called Assassins Creed when clearly it has the hidden blade,the hood,involves the Assassins and the precursors of the Templar order. No matter what,people will complain.
Being part of the Creed has never been about the aesthetic (hood, blade, and etc.). Killing some Templars don't make you part of the Creed. You learn that in AC 1. When you eat, sleep, and breathe the Creed, that's when you become apart of the Brotherhood.
As long as money is driving the franchise, it will never go back to the original message of what it really means to be apart of the Creed...
Ac oddysey is 99% greek war and 1% assassins creed
Ac valhalla is 95% viking stories and 5% assassins crreed
Hidden blades, hoods etc dont make this assassins creed.
Playing as an assassin and fighting a war against the templars makes a game assassins creed
@@sneezystudios5856 I mean in Blackflag you are not an Assassin and it's still considered one of the best ! Your point is invalid
@@mrmeme2917
Uhm Edward became an assassin and changed his life which makes a game fulfilling.
Kassandra and Eivor never become assassins and the games are meaningless. Just a huge waste of time.
Black flag is a great game but a bad ac game since it's main focus is pirates but in the end you still play as an assassin making it somewhat assassins creed.
Odyssey is a great game but there is nothing ac about it. Literally nothing.
Valhalla is a mediocre game. Eivor never becomes an assassin and the whole game is meaningless. Nothing fulfilling about it. You put in 100 hours easily for nothing.
Dude you know that Eivor's story is still uncompleted right 😂 the game will be supported for another 2 years and Ubisoft could absolutely make her an Assassin , at least I would take that over a Edward where becomes an Assassin in a fucking comic book 😂
I like how every franchise is going to a live service at the point where many people are sick of live services.
Valhalla is a lot more about the ac universe than odyssey. Both in terms of gameplay and even more in the story.
Then make a spin-off.
The gameplay in Valhalla is just terrible. The enemies fly away like rag dolls. The stealth is even worse, you get spotted in a millisecond if god forbid an enemy sees you from a kilometer away. Hell, odyssey had better stealth, and it wasn’t even a game that focused on stealth.
@@karangtavana1283 That is one opinion , it's true the guards spot eivor in one glance but not always. This happens when they are alerted like when a dead body is spotted (in this case they also gain the ability to look up 😛) or in restricted areas the closer he is the faster he is spotted.
As for the gameplay in general it is your opinion which you're entitled to but I prefer it from odyssey or origins I think it felt more organic than those two even though I prefer the previous formula.
@@seniorsterling1064 That would be an option I guess but they missed way better opportunities for spin offs also supposedly it's already decided what they're doing next
@@demonkey6997 yea i know but if you want a different toned story in the same universe just do wat the yakuza franchise did, judgement, action brawler gameplay. Yakuza 7 turn based gameplay. Bam everybody is satisfied and no fans are left to the wayside.
11:53 That can be said for pretty much everything that I ever loved since my childhood. My superheroes, elder scrolls, vampire the masquerade, star wars...
Damn can’t show some love for revelations
Its....a good game, just doesn't have an interesting of a story as 1, 2 or brotherhood. And the game looks like shit, I think at times ac1 has better graphics. The multiplayer was the only reason I had probably 100 hours in revalations
@@GuyOnTheInternet53 it looks like brotherhood or even 2 bro. And personally the story was a strong point. just watch the ending
@@MHWGamer dude brotherhood definitely looked better than revalations. Its just has backwards ass graphics
@@MHWGamer Revelations was a boring cash grab with a terrible family power struggle story that made no sense, there was no clear villain, the graphics were barely an improvement over brotherhood, the gameplay was clunky and hardly improved, and ultimately didn’t accomplish anything since the library was empty anyway. The first 2 hours and the last 2 hours were good, along with the Altair flashback missions, but that’s about it. 90% of the game was bad.
Props bro this is a well thought out vid love the analogy of the ship
What stealth mechanics are you missing from the previous AC games, Luke? You mean those repetitive and frustrating scripted chase/eavesdrop missions with poor AI? 😂
Excellent video love the way you summarized all of this
I've been a assassins creed fan from the beginning and I like where its going i know it isn't what it used to be but i still love it
The multiplayer in Brotherhood is maybe my favorite multiplayer mode of all time. I'm not really a multiplayer kind of guy but it was just so original and satisfying. Everyone is somebody's cat while simultaneously being a different person's mouse. You'd pretend to be a npc as defense AND offense! Its was genius!
My favorite kill of all time would be to social stealth inside a crowd, wait for my target to run by, tag them with poison, and swing the camera to watch them continue running, slow down, then keel over. All without me ever moving. Absolutely brilliant. ^^
Ubisoft was always an overrated company, it’s just now when they released their newest games when the ugly came out. That’s why I’m worried with the new Star Wars game they are working on, hope it’s not just a copy of watch dogs.
Idk about overrated. Back in the day they made amazing games and classics among a sea of mediocrity. Those classics make the mediocrity worth it
Ubisoft is better for star wars fans than ea will ever be.
Ubi is still shit tho but definitely not ad bad as ea
@@sneezystudios5856 idk bro fallen order was a step in the right direction
@@d_marv3lous237
I agree but ea didn't make that game, respawn did. ea said singleplayer games are dead.
Respawn deserves credit for fallen order, not ea.
@@sneezystudios5856 ea still had to sign off on the game being made tho. Ea funded the project. Ea deserves some credit.
The experiment is about a ship, but a better example to prove that despite the changes thing remains the same is the village - Once a village is established it is as intended, but does not become other village three generations later anyway. Thus, if there is continuity, the village or the ship are themselves.
Hooded Creed
Ads literally every 3 minutes, quality content and always enjoy hearing your point of view of these topics
Here’s my issue with this. 1. If a series never changed and evolved people would complain that the series is stale and never changes, but when they do the fan base cries and complains because it’s different. YES THATS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. 2 Ubisoft can do whatever they want it’s their title.
Yeah The fanbase can be Pretty stupid.
I agree with number 1, but 2 ain't it. I mean, yes, obviously they can do whatever they want, but at the end of the day they're creating games for people to buy, so if people don't want to buy it, they should be able to express that
Problem is balance, they changed too much now and the yearly to bi yearly release just makes it so tiring to get them. And then they further bog this stuff down with multiple microtransaction things to sell you now :/
It's why I stopped with rogue buying anything ubisoft honestly
1. Change is good but changing the meaning of the franchise is wrong. Ac is about assassins and templars, not about vikings or spartans.
2. Then ubi will cry like ea that no one buys their games. Bf5 is great example of this.
Foh we literally had 3 games back to back with British protagonist, we wanted better settings and stories not a completely different game doofus
Because the modern day storyline with the animus etc is still a continuation from the first Assassins Creed.
As someone who has played every game from day 1 (well technically 2 weeks after the first game released in 2007) I disagree entirely.
Firstly, the idea that the older games were more focused on stealth while the newer games don't do that and instead focus more on action and combat is wrong.
AC from day 1 let you ignore stealth. In AC1, with the exception of tailing and pickpocketing missions, let you fight your way through anything and everything. Hell, it was actually faster and easier to fight enemies than sneak past them as the stealth systems were slow and inefficient and enemy AI was unfair. You could 1 hit kill enemies with easy counter attacks. So Stealth was something you had to actively "role-play" rather than strategically use. AC2 only expanded combat options and had plenty of combat focussed missions and set pieces with the occasional mission actually requiring stealth. Come Brotherhood and Stealth was now being used as optional objectives in many missions. And since Brotherhood and following games had Chain kills which made combat even easier, stealth was even less useful. AC3 had ship battles and major wartime setpieces. AC4 had you play as Edward who wasn't even an Assassin for like 90% of the story. Syndicate had carriage chases and massive gang fights and also expanded the RPG side that AC2 introduced.
Basically, the older games were always action packed. Stealth was always an option you could do rather than a key approach you had to use. If you wanted to stealth, you had to role play it. Hell, we know from Ubisoft's own admission that Social Stealth, one of the highly marketed features of the series, was actually ignored by most players and trying to force it throufg tailing missions only frustrated most players.
Origins to Valhalla aren't magically more action packed than past games. The past games were always action packed. If anything, these games actually and finally encourage stealth way more because enemies being damage sponges in combat makes using stealth attacks faster and more efficient. You can see the inverse happen again in Valhalla when they removed that so combat became more useful again.
Secondly, they should still be called Assassin's Creed games because you play as a protagonist with Isu DNA who uses stealth, combat and parkour in historical settings to fight Templars in a conflict of order vs freedom. That's something every AC game, even the new RPGs do. The franchise needed to evolve as everyone and their mother complained the old games were copy and paste.
All the things people say the new games do differently is often ignorant of what past AC games already did.
"The new games focus too much on combat over stealth" - I already showed how that was not the case.
"The New Games are fantasy RPGs" - You missed that AC's own lore showed us, by AC4, that this was a universe where Time Traveling Aliens created a variety of near magical technology that did all kinds of stuff from Dr. Who Style reincarnation, planet sized forcefields, Wide Scale mind control, Digital Conciousness, Laser beams etc. Did y'all miss Ezio using the Apple of Eden in Brotherhood for like several sequences? AC games were always quite fantastical
As for the RPG side - AC2 first introduced an armour and gear system. Come Unity and it was fully fleshed out with different stats per piece. So why now is it wrong for AC games to embrace something that has been in the franchise since the second game?
Even locations. Brotherhood's Rome's entire eastern and southern map required you to use horses and lacked many buildings.
Even not playing as an Assassin. Ezio wasn't an Assassin for 75% of AC2. Yet he still did Assassin things. Nobody says that the first 75% of AC2 isn't an AC game. Edward wasn't an Assassin for 90% of 4. 50% of AC3 has you playing as a non-Assassin. Rogue has the character stop being an Assassin after the first act. So why now is it a bad thing?
I've always loved taking the Ship of Theseus idea a step further. What happens if you take all the planks of the original ship, then rebuild that ship with the original parts, which is the original ship? The one that had all the planks replaced, or the one that is made of all the pieces of the first ship?
Nice meme about the shaved face, lol.
Yeah, that's the second half of the paradox. I guess he missed it out because it didn't fit the point he was trying to make.
The same reason they called FarCry 2 'FarCry' brand recognition.
Far Cry 1 and 2 are merely technical demos of the CryEngine and Dunia, respectively. Buy FC2 is mechanically and thematically superior to all titles in the series.
Unless 6 delivers with the Macarena gun.
I used to play ghost recon wildcards as a modern day Assassin's creed game. So my head cannon I wasn't working for the US I was working for the brotherhood and had my squad dressed in white hoodies. Honestly it gave me a whole lot of fun
Notif : "Just now"
First comment : "1 hour ago"
I recon that even if Ubisoft released an Assassin's Creed with their older mechanics, they would still sell a lot more than the older games. I presume that the sales records of Valhalla is a by-product of increased brand recognition, and the combined appeal of purchasing the newer games, rather than the older ones. I would say that there are lots more AC fans now, and the sales would still reflect this regardless of the type of game (OG or RPG).
AC was losing sales from game to game until Origins. That's a clear message.
Man I completely disagree with Valhalla. Out of the 3 newer ones, Valhalla seems like it has way more to do with the Assassins and more classic assassin stuff vs. Oddessey and Origins. I also think Valhalla just has a better setting and way more interesting characters than the other two.
Totally agree with you
As a Viking!
Ya know what I would agree, if the game wasn’t as long as persona 5 with far les interesting combat.
@@seniorsterling1064 the combat is horrendous. The stealth is even worse. You get spotted in a millisecond if god forbid the enemy sees you.
@@seniorsterling1064 i live that its longs as hell. It also makes me a lit better for spending $120 on it. It took me 128 hours to beat the main quests. And i still have a bunch of shit on the mao to do. All this be for the first DLC came out.
So id say it was money well spent.
boy oh boy have i been waiting for this
#makeassassinscreedgreatagain
I like vallhalla but the best thing about it for me is that it got me into the franchise and now I've played all AC games except 3 rogue origins , Odyssey (I probably won't play Odyssey) and 1 ( I probably won't be able to play 1)
Ghost of tsushima is the new assassin's creed
They're both the same game.
I watched the "hold my beer" bit several times, it's just so good 👌
One of the most crybaby fanbases back at it again. The thing this fanbase has to realize is things evolve and change over time. Assassins creed has to change over the years. The lore is still there in the new games. Could you imagine if GTA stayed the same like the first two games? What about Fallout or Mass Effect? All those games are different genres than how they started out
Why are you reducing him to a "cry baby"? No need to be a dick..
. You can revolutionise a game series without watering it down to the point of it being devoid of whatever made it original. These new games exist to make you slog through the bloat and buy all the fucking micro transactions they shove in your face even though it'd a sp game. What a joke. We all have our standards. Some lower than others..