Eh, I got bored really quickly. What I liked about Origins was the fantastic story and the bustling cities with great acting sure the Grind was boring but I was enchanted by the Story. But now I just feel bored taking over cities and killing random Cult of Kosmos characters who I get very little backstory of and theres not even a death cutscene. And the Cities feel so barren.
I honestly agree bro, I haven’t had the mental wherewithal to complete an AC game since black flag, I got into syndicate a little and origins was real dope and step in the right direction but even that I didn’t finish, I can’t put this one down
The past games were always criticized for being repetitive and stale. The combat was boring as hell. The story went downhill after the ezio trilogy. The best assassins creed game in the old AC style was assassins creed syndicate and it DIDN'T sell enough. Change was inevitable. I love origins and odyssey.
Before Origins I wasn't really into the Assassin's Creed series and I am really enjoying Odyssey, so I guess since I now am interested, it can't be an AC game ;)
MrChills13 i play AC since 2007 BUT QUIT 2012 because i was bored from the saga. Since origins back and i love odyssey (you can do much more things then in every other ac) cant be better
Jessi James same here. After 2010 I put it down. I was surprised at how origins was last year and tried it. I was hooked. Loved everything about it. Was hoping the last one was going to be at least as good but too my surprise it’s even better. Whatever you want to call this game it’s damn good and I’m hooked on this franchise again. Not to mention Ubisoft announced that this was the biggest seller of all games on this generation of consoles. Even better than black flag. Cheers Ubisoft.
Its a ac game for sure people are just saying that because the creed isn't in this one but if you actually play the game you'll see its very much a ac gane
it shouldn't be because the story and the gameplay is soo much different hey if you are interested than thats good but the games didn't need an Asssassin's Creed name its so far apart that they could just do few tweaks and turn it into a totally different franchise which is why so many people are complaining its too apart from the franchises story plot and bloodline
For me I kinda find myself stuck in the middle of this debate - I enjoy Origins and Odyssey a lot (you should've heard me squeal when an Assassin's Creed game set in the Ptolemaic era was announced), and I can definitely see how they tie into the wider series, but in a lot of ways I don't identify them as Assassin's Creed games in anything other than name. For me, it's more mechanics and small details that make them feel different, rather than anything else. In previous Assassin's Creed I spend the vast majority of my time up in the rooftops, but since city states were organised in such a different way in 431 and 49 BCE I instead find myself spending the vast majority of my time running around in the grass. It feels petty to point this out as a reason why it doesn't feel like an AC game, but if I wanted to play an RPG where I spend the majority of my time running from quest to plot point to side quest, then I could play the Witcher 3 or Dragon Age Inquisition. If I want to play a stealth game where I traverse over rooftops and climb famous architecture, then I like to turn to AC games - it's just now I can only turn to the previous games, instead of the current one. In addition, I miss the noises - Origins only started to feel like an AC game for me when Bayek got the hidden blade, and I got to hear the slide-thunk noise again when assassinating people. I miss being able to hear when treasure is close by from the tinkle-tinkle noise, rather than having to constantly press the scan nearby button to try and find it (side note - why did they make that tag enemies in Odyssey as well when we have Ikaros? If you must change the mechanics up, be consistent about it). And yeah, I'll admit it - I miss the Assassin-Templar conflict. Sure, it could get a bit stale at times, but it kinda hurt getting to the end of Origins and realising that, while I ADORED Bayek and his storyline, it really had nothing to do with that conflict whatsoever, and the only real mention of Assassin's OR the Piece of Eden (y'know, the ultimate primary motivators for the series thus far!) is at the very end of the game. I'm unsure of how Odyssey fits into this wider conflict aside from Leonidas' spear possibly being itself a Piece of Eden, and while I have no doubt Kassandra or Alexios would've been taken in by the Assassins, that doesn't change the fact that ultimately they AREN'T Assassins, and aren't motivated in the same way as they are. This turned out a lot longer than I expected, so I'm gonna leave it here.
That is the problem People dont think it is a ac game because 1. There is no hidden blade 2.You are not on rooftops at all times 3. No mention of assassins or any brotherhood Like, what are those dumb argments Odyssey was set before everything the aon of A/K Forms a Creed in Origins and everything leads to altair and ezio and so on I dont get what people dont like. They are 100% ac games without them there wouldnt be altair or ezio.
@@felixblue4525 Yes, but theres a reason why it's called *Assassins Creed* Assassins vs Templars, Hidden Blades. Bayek was the earliest we needed since it was the founding of the brotherhood, this has just been called Assassins Creed because of it will make money.
@@felixblue4525 Oh forgot to mention that the Animus can only relive memories, not change them and since you have choices in this game, defeats purpose of animus.
@@felixblue4525 Nah man there's way more. 1. The lack of social stealth. Guards used to ignore you most of the time and only approached/reacted to you when you acted in a "socially unaccetable way". Their stages were unaware/not interested, curious, approaching, combat. Origins and Odyssey are missing the "curious" and "approaching" part, enemies attack you as soon as they see you, even outside of those dreadful copy-paste enemy camps. You're not an elusive assassin, who nobody saw and lived to tell the story, you're a prominent figure hunted by everybody and their chickens. 2. Traversal/parkour. Modern "Assassin's Creeds" don't feature parkour anymore. What they have is free-climbing and the leap of faith, that's it. 3. The main protagonist doesn't kill the innocent. Odyssey literally makes it profitable to slaughter a village and have mercernaries show up. Origins was great in this regard though. 4. It's supposed to be about actual history and based on technology. No magic. Odyssey has you fight mythical creatures, implemented with a lazy excuse. If "the Pieces of Eden created Medusa" is somehow credible, then why aren't there any monsters in the modern day or any other scenario around? Because they thought it would be cool and then came up with something to justify it. That's poor writing. If you're interested here's a more in-depth analysis based on the premises the series creator Patrice Désilets set for the franchise. www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/cltvzr/spoilers_an_examination_of_each_title_with_the/? The fact of the matter is Odyssey is guilty of breaking with almost every tradition the franchise had. It is it's own new franchise by now, they just kept the name for brand recognition and nothing else. It's not a breath of fresh air for the franchise, it's something else entirely. Something great, sure, but not an AC game.
or some people actually do not like rpgs. What if assassins creed was one of your favorite games and you find out they switched up the formula and now its a full on rpg. For those who cant stand the rpg genre i guess i understand where they are coming from. Just another angle to look at it from.
I hate to read comments like those, because it is as far from the truth as it can be. Instead of going on with the formula that made AC great and implement some nice innovations to make it feel fresh again (what I agree the franchise needed) they just fucking copied and paste from other games. It started with Origins. They just decided to do it the RPG way like The Witcher and similar games. No innovation just copying. They decided to make AC now a combat focused game and implemented a Dark Souls - like Combat system. In Odyssey they took the Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor and copied it. Now we have dialogue options and can choose between a penis and a vagina Character (it is really nothing more than that). All these things are no innovations. They are just copied and paste from other games. They are NOT "something different". When you say it is better, than it is your subjective opinion and I respect that. But I don't understand why copy and paste of other games formulars is better than a copy and paste of the own unique formular. AC was an innovative Open World game in the past with a great an creative story/characters and gameplay that no other game franchise had. Now it is just the poor mans "every year release" The Witcher with XP booster in it, because the progress system is broken and instead of patching it Ubisoft sell the fix only for real money. R.I.P AC franchise. I miss you...
@@ysoserious8526 i agree look at this clip at 7:05 , he just fooking teleports to the target. I'm very immersed great job Ubisoft looks like you rely more on "abilities" than tools/weapons. Think this is a game for casuals and im utterly disappointed lol
As a huge history nerd, the draw of the assassin's creed games for me has mainly always been about being able to run around (and murder people) in a historical setting while playing as an interesting protagonist. And while I did enjoy the ongoing conflict between the Assassins and Templars in previous games and the twists that it put on the historical context not having it in the game doesn't really bother me too much (Besides as Johnny pointed out it is still kind of there with Kassandra/Alexios and the cult of Kosmos). Overall I still consider Odyssey an Assassin's Creed game despite the changes.
In regards to the way the game relates to the precursors, yes it is an AC game. I can't help thinking that the game would benefit from shrugging the label of assassin's creed though. I think the key story reveals would have so much more impact if you never realised that the game had those key relations to the series. Also considering how few and far between those key moments are, shrugging the AC name to attract detractors of the series might have been a smart idea. For me this was the best "assassin's creed" game they've ever made.
Then they would just be crying that they got sold a reskin of origins, and that Ubi doesn't make new games they just resell the same thing ten times. It was a loose loose, they went with the one that sells more games and assumes the fan base has the mental capacity to under stand that bloodlines went back before some dudes made up a creed.
People have got to stop nitpickin stuff. Yes it has RPG elements, but I'll be damned if it isn't the same AC gameplay where I can crouch for days pickin ennemies one by one. So I can't one-shot every ennemy like before ? Great, it means killing a boss will be a tough thing to do and I won't spend 30+ hrs spamming the same button of assassination. I've played and loved AC2 at the time, but at some point you gotta move on. You hear everyone asking for bigger games, then they ask for your character to be godly and kill everyone in one stab...
It also fixed ACs biggest problem for people that enjoyed the game but got bored. AC always had this big problem for me, where the games start off super strong, with new mechanics and tools at your disposal every hour or two... then you have them all... so here is your list of guys to stab, go get stabbing. The progression really died off for me, and with gameplay so repetitive (I enjoy the hell out of it, but can you really deny that it used to be a lot of the same?) I think I only ever finished the first game... cause like, after a while parrying and insta killing gets old. Sprinkle in some RPG elements and remove fall damage however, and god damn if you don't have the finest RPG of the year.
Like, imagine for a second that game without the RPG bits added in... you unlock all your powers in the first 10 hours, then... 50 hours of sneak-stab-run?
The video missed the most important point as to why it's not an AC game. With the Animus, you're supposed to RELIVE the memories of your ancestor... not choose your favorite gender and make choices that lead to different endings. That doesn't make any narrative sense because as the past games have shown, the animus is meant to relive and reach full synchronization of your ancestors (to see events exactly as they saw which means 1 story with 1 ending). This game treats it like a simulation where you can just change what your ancestor lives at your leisure. Ubisoft already said that the canon protagonist of Odyssey is Kassandra, so WHY is Alexios evem a choice unless it was just to sell this game on an rpg gimmick that has no place in the series. Origins had the perfect balance because you stick to 1 story and RELIVED the memories of Bayek, not rewrote them.
I agree, the game does fundamentally break the existing story. However that being said, it's a game and it's a great game, it's very fun. I'm not to worried about it, honestly I'm just having fun playing it.
So you can roleplay a modern day assassin reliving memories of someone from the past, but not the actual person you spend 95 percent of the game with? When YOU make a choice, that's the choice the ancestor made. That's it. Just because they give you as the player the ability to direct the story doesn't change a damn thing. It's how your mentally handling it that makes it a problem. (For you) If you'd prefer they hold your hand the whole time, go back and replay the old games. I'd also recommend you don't play Odyssey with exploration mode on, if hand holding is your thing. Guided mode is what you want.
@@nic_asg Haha, looks like I hit a nerve with you. If you're so into choice then you might be in the wrong franchise given that AC has basically never really been about that narratively. You sound like you'd enjoy Odyssey and Fallout games (nothing wrong with that). Also, funny you mention which games I play because I actually do prefer to play Origins most. That's just me though. If what I said bothered you so much, go back and check the foundations AC was built on narratively. Has NOTHING to do with holding your hand (Origins was the perfect balance of exploration and narrative). Also, by your reasoning, EVERY game with a written set story is "holding your hand". I think your confusing a storytelling with gameplay features.
@@BTmethius i agree origins had it right and made sense with the animus. I also like have choice of character again too but i want for it to make sense like origins did. They should have left the choice to choose character, dialog was cool but not good for the series imo ..
@@BTmethius You're right I do enjoy Odyssey and the Fallout games. And true enough that Origins was the perfect mix of both. But fore, i just prefer more of the later.
I like Odyssey as a nice if somewhat tedious rpg but not an AC game. The setting is good, the story is good and it looks nice. However for me a proper AC game is centered around stealth, social stealth and parkour without having to think about leveling up, looting etc. The challenge should not be how to beat a random npc in a fight but to find creative ways to find and assassinate your designated target using the above mentioned skills. Also with these earlier settings we are losing the historical realism that was big unique aspect of previous games.
Aside from the social stealth Odyssey is the best post Ezio era game in exactly this department. The game actively rewards being stealthy and is challenging but fair at the same time. I got some serious AC2 flashbacks playing Odyssey. The gear and loot only add to the experience. At least for me the Assassin' Creed part is the best thing about Odyssey.
the Assassin build in this game is ridiculously OP, but most people are going for the Warrior build for some reason, so it may not look like an AC game for them
I remember when Ac black flag was hated at for for not being an "assassins creed" game because of the ship and pirate theme of the game. Now it's one of the if not the best of the series.
One of the best things about Origins and Odyssey is that the old mission requirements have been removed. Previously, if you were spotted, it was over. Assassins don't fight their way out of a tight spot, according to Ubisoft.......they desynchronize!!! And let's not forget about getting 100% synch on each mission, and all the horrible bullshit we were forced to do to not feel useless. All that's gone now, and we're allowed to truly approach each situation exactly the way we want to. And THAT'S why I don't give a fuck if these are Assassin's games anymore or not. They're the way the series should've been from the start.
I was sceptical when origin first came out but over all the changes in assassin's creed origins and odyssey make the game more enjoyable and adds more content let's face it the other games you complete the main missions and then it's boring (at at that assassin's creed is my favourite game series) while now theres side quests and to the question of whether this is considered a proper ac game think about it the game shows you the origin of the templar order as the cultists. And for anyone unsure of whether to play it I would definitely recommend it.
This game is a masterpiece that brings to the life what the Assassin's Creed universe would soon be all about and why it was important for the Assassin's to be created. The appearance of Juno at the end tells a lot about her and her future endeavors. Juno was always about controlling humans and the world, just like the Templar were, thus why she created the Pieces of Eden. Let's you really understand how much she was manipulating the Templar's and Assassin's in the later games even though she wasn't mentioned in all of them. Odyssey put in place why it would be very important to stop the Isu's will in the future. This game was needed because the series was getting to be repetitive.
I like Origins fine as a game but I would have preferred the gameplay of Assassin's Creed games stay the way that it was. Earlier AC games weren't RPGs and stealth was more important than open combat. I haven't played Odyssey yet, but infusing player choice into the character kind of trash cans the established lore of how the animus works. From my time with Origins I find there to be a lot to do in the big open world but a lot of it feels like repetitive filler and the journey to travel between quest points feels like a time suck after 40+ hours. In previous AC games I spent more time trying to avoid combat and now the point seems to be more about killing everyone. I think Origins and Odyssey work fine as spinoff titles but they will never truly feel like AC games to me.
@Nathan origins stealth was GARBAGE. Stab and run and it forced you so hard out of stealth. No good stealth options but stab and run and shoot bows. That's it!! Ac2 had better stealth options. Ac2 through syndicate. In ac2 I can jump from a parachute and shit and alot more. So no origins stealth was GARBAGE. Yes odyssey stealth has improved and I like it but get origins out of there. I liked the character in origins but the story could have been alot more and alot longer. especially when you are talking about the beginning of the assassin's. Origins should have had the long play hours of odyssey which is 50 hours to beat the campaign at best. I beat origins in a day which was pretty disappointing.
I agree. Origins and this seem like well made games don't get me wrong. But I personally preferred the old style and just can't get into these new one to be honest.
@@Sirwest299 1 thing jn origins was the assassinations werent as fluid. The slomo was often useful but took away the flow, it was less stealthy and the hidden blade can't be used as a weapon so is way more limiting
for me, origin and odyssey is even more assassin-like game than its predecessor. like u said, in older games, we used to hit counter button to one shot everyone. unless the mission needed me to remain incognito, i would just blaze through 50 guards, unless i wanted to roleplay as an assassin. in these games, i would need to think twice before an open fight. i definitely dont want to fight a tank, an elite ranger, dagger-wielding woman who spam special attacks and big shield guards at the same time without thinning out the army first. thus i would need to use ikaros, wait till night, learn the local map and specialize in assassin skill tree to become an actual assassin. it's a more satisfying feeling than the older games tbh. so i really enjoyed the changes they made.
I say still Assassin's Creed, basically since the start of the series they at least hinted to Adam and Eve, two of the first humans with the 'sixth sense' and if memory serves they led the rebellion and assassinated Isu, Odyssey in essence continues what they did, long before the Brotherhood was made Saying Odyssey is not an Assassin's creed game due to the lack of a hidden blade/ lack of assassinations, is like saying Farcry 5 is not a Farcry game just because its not on an island. But I digress, it continues the story of the original game, we see more of the Isu and what they left behind more than ever, i remember how alot of us once wished we could get an AC game that took us to the time of those that came before just because we knew next to nothing about them, now we get the chance to see more, hopefully in the future we get to see even more. The combat changed but I think it's better now, no more one versus one/two, now if you don't pay attention and act, you are going to have a bad day suffice to say.
Eh, I disagree. The combat may be better, but it sacrifices so much just be an RPG. And I felt nothing during the entire game and thought that killing Cosmos members was a chore because they had no character.
I'm level 25 and had no idea about hitting down on the dpad to have another 4 ability slots. I kept switching thwm out and was annoyed. Wtf?!?!? And how do you have 7 adrenaline slots at level 16?????
It branches on new ideas for the AC series, plus it gives us a more clearer insight to what the Isu where capable of, such as to be related to Leonidas or just so happen to have built Atlantis as a library, who knows whats in store for us in the future AC games, but i really want to see more mythical creatures that also just so happened to be created by the Isu. Plus i really like the idea of the Cult of Kosmos, ads something new to explore and uncovering each cultists is pretty exciting, i already have an idea who the leader of the cult is but i wont say it for spoilers sake
My answer is yes it is. You're still doing the same thing, just now there's more of an RPG flavour. As much as some fans hate it I'd say the modern day is the key thread that ties the series together. The Assassins and Templars trying to find out about Isu technology is the most important aspect from a story standpoint for me as a long time fan of the series. Odyssey goes in very heavily with the Isu stuff (and I love it for it) and that is the key connection to the rest of the series, not the Cult of Kosmos. The reason you're viewing these memories is to find these artifacts, more information about those who came before and stop a global catastrophe. What annoys me more is how they've almost removed the modern day storyline in some of the later games when this is the story that has been in all the games so far. Heck Juno the big threat to the world was killed in a comic! A comic! But that's a rant for another time...
Eh I disagree, sure it connects to the Isu, but it's forced in. Also people seem to forget that the Animus can't change memories, yet you have choices with wildly different endings. even though only one is canon.
odyssey was before even the creed of the assassin brotherhood was created, this is the creed: "Laa shay'a waqi'un mutlaq bale kouloun moumkin. ("Nothing is true, everything is permitted" in Arabic.)" "We work in the dark, to serve the light. We are Assassins." now if you could show me one reference to that in assassins creed odyssey i would be happy to call it an assassins creed game The Order believes in a strong set of values that strictly govern their way of life, referred to as "the Creed". This Creed consists of three tenets: "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent." "Hide in plain sight, be one with the crowd." "Never compromise the Brotherhood."[8] These tenets permeated every aspect of the Assassins' daily life, as well as their fight for "peace in all things". The Assassins carry out their duties through political, strategic assassination, in the hope that killing one individual will lead to the salvation of thousands. They also believe that they fight on the behalf of those who do not possess the abilities, resources, or knowledge to speak out against those who abuse their power.[1] now in Odyssey you are allowed to kill innocent people, does that obey the creed? no, so whats the point of calling it assassins creed, it is the assassin's creed, creed of what? creed of the brotherhood, but in odyssey you dont even find one reference to that creed and you dont even follow that creed, so my friend, if you want you call it an assassin game, but not an assassins creed game.
It is because the modern day. Some people may not realise it but all the games are all about modern day story, ubisoft is just doing poor job on that so people dont focus it.
No, it doesn't really feel like Assassin's Creed anymore to me, but it is still very fun (minus the micro transactions). I kind of wish they'd go back to basics in the next game (in terms of story, not necessarily gameplay). But they probably won't.
This is one of the best AC games I've ever played since BL. I love the new RPG elements and optional choices when talking to different characters which has an affect on the overall story. There are a few missed tricks like the one on one cut scenes and voice overs when taking down a main story enemy. 'Confirm kill' seems a bit cheep and a bit bland but the game is absolutely massive so I can appreciate why certain features that make an AC game an AC game aren't present. Still a few bugs present on PC, mostly with trying to load quick saves and mission counters on sea missions but I'm hoping these issues will be sorted in future updates.. Amazing game overall, very happy.
I love what they've done with the franchise with Origins and Odyssey. Honestly I'd love if they revisited the first game and remade it with a similar expanded world (without changing the story, of course.) I'd love to see the Crusades come to life in the same way as Ptolemaic Egypt and Classical Greek did.
The main problem that I have with the game is not lore. It is combat. Origin, Odyssey, and even Syndicate all changed the combat style of the game from a stealth based combat game to an open world RPG with different combat styles and level walls. It is quintessentially different in its core gameplay from the “true” Assassins’ Creed games.
I think it’s funny that people were complaining about Assassins Creed getting boring a formulaic yet, when Ubisoft changed the game up people were still mad. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t thing. I personally like the new direction. Syndicate and Black Flag were the last of the good “old style” Assassins Creed games. Unity could’ve been great if it wasn’t for all the problems and the online component. Origins was great, exploring a fully realized Egypt was amazing. The story was also pretty good. I haven’t gotten Odyssey yet but, it looks amazing. I can’t wait to travel Ancient Greece.
When I first heard that odyssey would not feature the creed, I was a bit annoyed. But now I am playing odyssey and I am completely ok with that. Odyssey is surely my favorite AC game. When you look back at games like AC 2 it is (in my opinion) quite flawed. I think it is mostly nostalgia keeping the die hard AC fans alive with the opinion that odyssey is not a real AC game.
To me, Assassin's Creed was always about virtual historical tourism. Seeing and visiting historical settings, climbing historical buildings and getting a sense of the scale, architecture and engineering required to create them. The incorporation of mythological creatures sours that historical ambience a bit. Odyssey also doesn't play much like an Assassin's Creed game. On the higher difficulties, assassinations of targets is frequently impossible to the point where you'll only do a bit (or a lot) of damage to their health. Odyssey feels more like a 3rd person action Titan Quest game to me than Assassin's Creed. They should have made it its own thing like with Skull & Bones.
Odyssey is arguably my favorite game of all time, even rivaling the Mass Effect trilogy. It's an action RPG set in a time period that no other game has been able to accurately portray in such detail. Although I would have liked to see them have focused more on the present day story so that we aren't questioning whether or not this really is an Assassin Creed game at its core. Odyssey can easily have been a trilogy story arch with tangents to the core A.C. franchise without sacrificing cannon. 95% of the game is amazing 10/10, but the flimsy attempts at linking the A.C. story in the present day scenes are caught reaching with plot holes larger enough to perform a leap of faith.
I don't think that it is an assassins creed game because of it being 400 years before the brotherhood but it don't stop it from being a great game which it truly is and I'm loving it
I have been primarily sneaking around literally "assassinating" people. It has the naval mechanics of Black Flag(people may say that too isn't an AC game), it has the climb us this tower/tree/cliff to reach a sync point to reveal the map, it has you helping peasants and assassinating important targets... It follows the same 'secret society in history plot line' they all have... it has modern day people using an animus to go back in time and re-live these peoples memories... (kind of breaks the lore if you're making choices though) The only thing this game does differently is the combat style which revolves heavily around abilities, the choices in dialogue which minimally impact the story line and an abundance of differently stated gear which allows you to change your looks and support your preferred combat style. Which you could say is just the evolution of the game and the recent popularity boom of the RPG genre. It's easily identifiable as an AC game, imo it's probably my new favorite AC game and i'd guess anyone who thinks it isn't an AC game hasn't actually played it...
The main argument is that the game makes stealth far to hard to use without maximising equipment for it. The best part about how ac used to be was going to harder sections and relying on stealth to get through. Also too much grinding up levels and syndicate managed to do it really well where you would get just the right experience for main missions to always be at the right level.
I'm a 5 year + player of assassin's creed, and as soon as I heard about Odyssey I was against it. Origins is like a Prequel to the 'Assassins'. Odyssey, is like a prequel to a prequel. Assassin's Creed needs Assassins, and their Creed! Be like watching Spider-Man, but without Peter, or the powers. Now, I did get the game today, I'm enjoying it. But, I feel like what made an Assassin's Creed, is almost just completely gone. Like a childhood friend that you loved, but has changed a lot. And I blame greedy Ubisoft. It's always money, money, money.
I can't believe people are complaining about an excellent game and what's more, it's way more game for your money! After the Witcher 3, I tried Dragon Age and Skyrim and was terribly disappointed by both because they did not even come close but this has definitely scratched the itch in a big way. Super happy and I desperately hope this RPG style never ever changes.
It felt like in Origins they didn't want to do stealth; the animations didn't feel as weighty and satisfying compared to previous games and there weren't many skills that radically changed how you could play compared to older games.
Not true if you explore the Isu vaults in Origins it’s says how Layla’s animus is different from others an basically using “The Isu time code” can predict alternate timelines/calculations hence we get choices. It’s defo a change but they explained it
It's an AC game because the creators said so and as long as it's still connected to the franchise I think it's fine. It's their game not mine anyway. I'm not shallow enough to say that no hidden blade means it's not AC
It is an Assassins Creed game for sure. It predates the notorious cult of the Assassins which is derived from the Arabic word Hashashin (Murderers) who formed a cult in Syria 1000 years ago (This was depicted by the AC game in the Al Tair) and therefore Odyssey cannot be linked to that cult. However, the cult here is by another name; Cosmos. It is the same principle as the narrator says but with much much better graphics, gameplay and open works instead of linear gaming of the olden times. So enjoy the best game of the AC ever ! BTW, I'm playing Assassins Creed Black Flag at the moment and I'm having a great time with it !
Yeah those same people saying this game is not an assassin's creed game, if the elements in this game were used in another game not called assassins creed they'd call it a clone or wannabe
I pose this question for everyone, would the game be any different if it was set after origins where the protagonists are one of the first to join, it would have much the same story.
I don't think it counts because the story isn't even canon to the rest of the franchise. If you want to know what really happened you have to read the damn book. They might as well of started a new franchise and used a lot of the assets from AC so they can have more freedom to make the game as good as possible while still pleasing people that enjoy the AC formula. Odyssey just comes across as neither a good ac, or RPG imo.
Oh what was in the book because... . . . The ending where Kassandra hands the staff to Layla suggests that the next game will be about ending the conflict between Assassins and Templars by wiping out both orders. Why? because after living to be over 2400 years old... Kassandra sees the Assassins as a necessary evil in keeping the Templars in check, but not as a force for good in their own right.
I wish it would have been the start of a fresh new franchise. I honestly can't stand the Assassins Vs Templars gibberish. It's still what's holding me back on buying the game I am genuinely interested in.
Well, this game is about exploring how Humans came to understand how to use First Civilization garbage. Thus leading to the Animus. The present day parts of the game DO deal with the Assassins vs Templars conflict quite heavily though.
It’s a real assassins creed game because Ubisoft made it and named it assassins creed. When will consumers get it through their head that they don’t decide what others people creations are. This is Ubisoft’s creation and decision.
It is. The same way halo reach is still a halo game. Despite having no halos, flood, chief or cortana. It’s just an extension of the already established universe by going back before the main events of the original games. I.e. assassins and templars.
I'm leaning toward the side for it. BUT, I'd honestly say there's a strong argument for both sides. The core mechanics are still there, so it feels like an ac game to me. But add in the fact they're saving the appearance of someone resembling the assassin's we know for the dlc, not the main story, and it kinda muddies the water. Still, i'm largely agreeing with those for it. But all and all, I'm really enjoying the game. And isn't that the most important part: entertainment factor?
I never liked rpgs and because of that i was hestiated to play origins. But i decided to play origins. Loved it. Ive played about 50 hours of odyssey and i love it. Odyssey is over all an ac game
Hypothetical scenario: A Star Wars movie, set on a single planet, let's say Tython, pre-hyperdrive civilization. It has the original Jedi who venerate the Ashla, and the OG Dark Jedi who embrace the Bogan. It has heroes, sidekicks, adventure, a dark lord, and an epic sword fight. Is it still Star Wars? Yes. Certainly, new ground for the franchise to tackle, but yes.
Ezio Auditore da Firenze once spoke of the maxim at length with Sofia Sartor, who found it rather cynical. However, he told her that the maxim was not a doctrine to be followed, but merely an observation of the world.[4] In detail, he explained that "To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic." Now think about Odyssey gameplay and think if this is true.... :D
To contribute to this argument I believe that AC odyssey is the metal gear solid 3 of the series: different gameplay mechanics and a different story style, but mainly why I picked mgs 3 is because it was all before anything was relevant in the series and while you were playing Naked Snake instead of Solid Snake and fighting the Shagohod instead of Metal Gear you still feel like you're playing a Metal gear solid game and mgs isn't the only example I can provide. Silent Hill, Persona, Final fantasy, Call of duty. They all had different machinics and stories for each game they pump out and while different are all under the same name as before and we're not complaining about that, are we? The short answer is yes it is an assassins creed game. I would like to know your opinion on the matter; what you agree or disagree, what you might want to add on.
I mean ac 4 black flag didn’t quite feel like an ac game either. At the time, i described it to friends as “the best pirate simulator to date.” Maybe odyssey isn’t an AC game but it is undoubtedly a good game and I hope Ubisoft keeps up this trend.
It's a shame that the open world isn't properly utilised for missions. A lot of people would be happy if they make more interesting levels than those lame outposts and forts.
still better than flags,feathers,animus fragments and other crap collectables.At least there is a reason to finish stuff in forts unlike pointless collectables and a lot of quests take place in forts so I don't know what you are complaining about.
The player's individual skill is replaced by a spreadsheet which dictates how the player should experience the game. It essentially forces the player to grind for 'experience' and blocks the player's progression in main story narrative. This is a stark difference from the past installments. Is animal taming really necessary? Just how many TH-cam gameplay videos out there that show a tamed animal fighting alongside with Alexios or Kassandra? It's a haphazard implementation of a gameplay feature that most players hardly ever want to use.
I think it is considering with some proof that would take to long to explain, if they got their hands on the Apple of Eden and saw the future, then Alexios would create the Templar order and Kassandra would create Assassin order.
ok so what he's saying is "well it plays the same but 5 minutes later I say it plays different, the narrative is still there but again a few minute later I say it's different, but ehi I like it so yeah it's an assassin's creed game"
I still don't get why there's no continuation of Bayek's story. It would make sense considering his official founding of the Brotherhood at the end of Origins. We could have had another amazing Trilogy on our hands
Origins & Odyssey just feels like a backdoor launch of a new IP which I feel might have benefited story wise had it been a new IP rather than fitting into the main AC continuity.
AC 1: An assassin from the start AC 2: Joins assassins near the end AC Brotherhood: Assassin from the start AC Revelations: Assassin from the start AC 3: Join the assassins mid-way through AC 4 Black Flag: Join the assassins near the end AC Rouge: Start as an assassin, then join the Templars AC Unity: Join the assassins mid-way through AC Syndicate: Assassin from the start AC Origins: Join (and create) the assassins in the ending cut scene AC Odyssey: Not an assassin Looking at this a different way: In 6/11 AC games, you are an assassin for the majority of the game In 5/11 AC games, you are not an assassin for the majority of the game Odyssey is not a huge departure for the series. Is there really that much of a difference between joining the assassins in the final act and not joining the assassins at all? I don't think so.
Can't keep doing the same things all the time if you want longevity. Every franchise that has lasted long periods of time had to switch things up and evolve at some point, and that's exactly what the AC franchise is doing. Ubisoft understands they can only do the old format for so Long Before everyone gets bored and stops playing altogether. By adapting to the new generation of fans, they are in expanding on the franchises legacy, and if the units sold and review scores are any indication, they made the right choice 💯
I'm really enjoying my time with Odyssey. Way more than I did with Unity, Syndicate, or Rogue. Combat still needs a bit of work but I still say it's better than the boring waiting to counter Arkham style combat. I know a lot of people like it but it's just super boring for me. X, X, Triangle, X, X, triangle, X, X, triangle. Way over simplified imo. Though I will admit, there will most likely be a day when I am tired of huge open world rpgs, but for now I really like Odyssey and super happy with the new direction.
The Animus VR headset looks rather silly. How could Layla turn around to look behind in the virtual world when she is physically lying down? She's experiencing it like a 3D movie?
I think Assassins Creed refers more to the classic gameplay rather than the 'Creed' itself. If this game were released as any other name it'd have been criticised for being too similar to Assassins Creed. Similarly like Call of Duty was WW2 but eventually evolved to the current craziness but kept the core gameplay which made it Call of Duty!
I think the option to play as either male or female should have been applied the same way it was applied in Syndicate where you can actually switch characters between missions. It made a lot more sense from story prospective why you'd be able to choose and switch between them as both grow characters grew up together and did missions for the Assassins. But Odyssey does not explain fom story prospectivs how whichever character you choose always happens to be the one who had the staff. Also can we mention how you're only playing the game to find out where Alexios or Kasandra hid the staff which SPOILER has nothing to do with the search for his/her mother for the most part?
It's a really great game...this is what the series should have been from the beginning. I always thought while playing older Assassins Creed games that wouldn't this be great if it was a rpg and now here it is and I can understand why some fans complain because they love the structure of the older games and that's fine but I could never really get into them as much. This has been the first one to really hold my attention and don't get me wrong it isn't perfect but I think it is a step in the right direction for the series. I think that this series would have been even better if they had maybe dropped the Assassin Creed name and maybe went with something more fantastical and mythical ie historical mythology but as a new franchise then they wouldn't be beholden to the AC franchise and it would really help and I think it would sell but they are relying on the name and brand recognition of AC and I think it will hold them back creatively in the future...Still a amazing game though and the world they have build is really second to none at this point in time. You can tell they put alot of work and love into creating this game so credit where credit is due.
There were assassins before the creed,darius,bayek etc,the game even gives you missions where it says ASSASSINATE (name here) people are too quick to judge.
It may be called Assassins Creed but it surely isn't the classic AC most of us grew up playing. It stopped being that when it tried to copy the Witcher 3 formula and went to the expansive open word and tried to become an RPG. This is typical Ubisoft, they made Origins and it had some success so they copied the formula and made Odyssey with a few improvements here and there and changed locations. The next installment will repeat the process, and so on... Starting to sound familiar? I guess I should be happy there isn't a Battle Royel mode...yet!!
I wouldn't care what a game is called just as long as it's fun to play. I can see some of the arguments for and against this game. And I can agree with both of them. But I say everyone should just play it for themselves before deciding weather they like it or not. Till then just don't say anything.
The answer is no for the simple reason that you just made a game called Origins LAST YEAR. It’s just backwards placing an Assassins Creed game set before the events that led to the creation of the Assassins. Also compare Alexios and Kassandra’s climbing and fluidity to Bayek, Ezio or Altair. The latter three are much more loose and nimble with their movements, staples of the Assassins. Odyssey is a fantastic game but they could’ve released this without attaching AC to it and I guarantee it would’ve sold just fine
Deadman Arcade That doesn’t change the fact that it has nothing to do with the Creed or it’s creation, just about the events of the war, which to this point has nothing to do with the brotherhood which is the basis of the series.
Red Shinobi but the icu does have to do with assassins creed, assassins creed rogue was still an assassins creed game even tho we played as a Templar lol
Deadman Arcade it comes down to how Odyssey portrays the Isu and handles their importance. The brotherhood was formed without note of the Isu in Origins but depending on how someone interprets Rouge and Ezio’s interaction with Minerva the argument can be made
It’s an amazing game, I’m loving it, it might be my new favorite over black flag, I haven’t finished it yet so I’ll reserve ranking it after I do finish the game but to me it’s definitely worthy of the name Assassin’s Creed
this is an assassins creed game o matter how you look at it. it just seems the ones criticizing it are having a hard time playing it without the handicap triangle counter button. best ac game yet better than origins
You forgot to mention that you’re protecting ancient artifacts from the first civilizations... yes it’s a fucking assassins creed game. People will complain about this series no matter what they do. I’ve played every main title since the first. Origins, odyssey, black flag, 2 and brotherhood are my favs. Honestly the gameplay in Odyssey is so fun that it’s hard to go back and feel like AC 2 isn’t too repetitive.
Assassins Creed IV Black Flag was the best AC game i have played imo...
Dolphin Cafe ew
Leonce Brooke ew a Black Flag hater
black flag unity and 2 are the best
Ew is 2 new non assassin creed game random rpg
No matter what it's an amazing game. Beautiful to play, wonderfully historic, and interesting.
Eh, I got bored really quickly. What I liked about Origins was the fantastic story and the bustling cities with great acting sure the Grind was boring but I was enchanted by the Story. But now I just feel bored taking over cities and killing random Cult of Kosmos characters who I get very little backstory of and theres not even a death cutscene. And the Cities feel so barren.
there's only one thing bothering me and just about everyone else, there's "Assassins Creed" in the title
Works for me. This is the first AC game that has caught my eye.
Whatever the changes to the formula are, they've loosened my pursestrings.
This is a re-skin of origins so play that one too
It's not just an assassins creed game. It's the best assassins creed game.
I honestly agree bro, I haven’t had the mental wherewithal to complete an AC game since black flag, I got into syndicate a little and origins was real dope and step in the right direction but even that I didn’t finish, I can’t put this one down
Shan Rehman hate to admit it coz no assassin brotherhood but yes it is
Ya, i played ALL main assassin's creed games, and even i like the spear more then the hidden blade.
A metaphor btw
nothing will ever beat AC2 for me or as far as games go the great game you have as your profile ;)
@@akashjha8864 The witcher 3 killed all the other games. And is still killing them.
The past games were always criticized for being repetitive and stale. The combat was boring as hell. The story went downhill after the ezio trilogy. The best assassins creed game in the old AC style was assassins creed syndicate and it DIDN'T sell enough. Change was inevitable. I love origins and odyssey.
Shan Rehman syndicate sucked. The ezio story was great.
Syndicate's weak point was probably the story, the visuals and mechanics of it were fine.
Disagree.
Syndicate the best ??? Its the worst of all ACs
I think the main problem was the annual releases
Before Origins I wasn't really into the Assassin's Creed series and I am really enjoying Odyssey, so I guess since I now am interested, it can't be an AC game ;)
MrChills13 i play AC since 2007 BUT QUIT 2012 because i was bored from the saga. Since origins back and i love odyssey (you can do much more things then in every other ac) cant be better
Jessi James same here. After 2010 I put it down. I was surprised at how origins was last year and tried it. I was hooked. Loved everything about it. Was hoping the last one was going to be at least as good but too my surprise it’s even better. Whatever you want to call this game it’s damn good and I’m hooked on this franchise again. Not to mention Ubisoft announced that this was the biggest seller of all games on this generation of consoles. Even better than black flag. Cheers Ubisoft.
Its a ac game for sure people are just saying that because the creed isn't in this one but if you actually play the game you'll see its very much a ac gane
@@SuperZombiepimp but the only thing I miss is the hidden blade
it shouldn't be because the story and the gameplay is soo much different hey if you are interested than thats good but the games didn't need an Asssassin's Creed name its so far apart that they could just do few tweaks and turn it into a totally different franchise which is why so many people are complaining its too apart from the franchises story plot and bloodline
For me I kinda find myself stuck in the middle of this debate - I enjoy Origins and Odyssey a lot (you should've heard me squeal when an Assassin's Creed game set in the Ptolemaic era was announced), and I can definitely see how they tie into the wider series, but in a lot of ways I don't identify them as Assassin's Creed games in anything other than name. For me, it's more mechanics and small details that make them feel different, rather than anything else.
In previous Assassin's Creed I spend the vast majority of my time up in the rooftops, but since city states were organised in such a different way in 431 and 49 BCE I instead find myself spending the vast majority of my time running around in the grass. It feels petty to point this out as a reason why it doesn't feel like an AC game, but if I wanted to play an RPG where I spend the majority of my time running from quest to plot point to side quest, then I could play the Witcher 3 or Dragon Age Inquisition. If I want to play a stealth game where I traverse over rooftops and climb famous architecture, then I like to turn to AC games - it's just now I can only turn to the previous games, instead of the current one.
In addition, I miss the noises - Origins only started to feel like an AC game for me when Bayek got the hidden blade, and I got to hear the slide-thunk noise again when assassinating people. I miss being able to hear when treasure is close by from the tinkle-tinkle noise, rather than having to constantly press the scan nearby button to try and find it (side note - why did they make that tag enemies in Odyssey as well when we have Ikaros? If you must change the mechanics up, be consistent about it).
And yeah, I'll admit it - I miss the Assassin-Templar conflict. Sure, it could get a bit stale at times, but it kinda hurt getting to the end of Origins and realising that, while I ADORED Bayek and his storyline, it really had nothing to do with that conflict whatsoever, and the only real mention of Assassin's OR the Piece of Eden (y'know, the ultimate primary motivators for the series thus far!) is at the very end of the game. I'm unsure of how Odyssey fits into this wider conflict aside from Leonidas' spear possibly being itself a Piece of Eden, and while I have no doubt Kassandra or Alexios would've been taken in by the Assassins, that doesn't change the fact that ultimately they AREN'T Assassins, and aren't motivated in the same way as they are.
This turned out a lot longer than I expected, so I'm gonna leave it here.
That is the problem
People dont think it is a ac game because 1. There is no hidden blade
2.You are not on rooftops at all times
3. No mention of assassins or any brotherhood
Like, what are those dumb argments
Odyssey was set before everything the aon of A/K
Forms a Creed in Origins and everything leads to altair and ezio and so on
I dont get what people dont like.
They are 100% ac games without them there wouldnt be altair or ezio.
@@felixblue4525 Yes, but theres a reason why it's called *Assassins Creed* Assassins vs Templars, Hidden Blades. Bayek was the earliest we needed since it was the founding of the brotherhood, this has just been called Assassins Creed because of it will make money.
@@felixblue4525 Oh forgot to mention that the Animus can only relive memories, not change them and since you have choices in this game, defeats purpose of animus.
@@felixblue4525 Nah man there's way more.
1. The lack of social stealth. Guards used to ignore you most of the time and only approached/reacted to you when you acted in a "socially unaccetable way". Their stages were unaware/not interested, curious, approaching, combat. Origins and Odyssey are missing the "curious" and "approaching" part, enemies attack you as soon as they see you, even outside of those dreadful copy-paste enemy camps. You're not an elusive assassin, who nobody saw and lived to tell the story, you're a prominent figure hunted by everybody and their chickens.
2. Traversal/parkour. Modern "Assassin's Creeds" don't feature parkour anymore. What they have is free-climbing and the leap of faith, that's it.
3. The main protagonist doesn't kill the innocent. Odyssey literally makes it profitable to slaughter a village and have mercernaries show up. Origins was great in this regard though.
4. It's supposed to be about actual history and based on technology. No magic. Odyssey has you fight mythical creatures, implemented with a lazy excuse. If "the Pieces of Eden created Medusa" is somehow credible, then why aren't there any monsters in the modern day or any other scenario around? Because they thought it would be cool and then came up with something to justify it. That's poor writing.
If you're interested here's a more in-depth analysis based on the premises the series creator Patrice Désilets set for the franchise.
www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/cltvzr/spoilers_an_examination_of_each_title_with_the/?
The fact of the matter is Odyssey is guilty of breaking with almost every tradition the franchise had. It is it's own new franchise by now, they just kept the name for brand recognition and nothing else. It's not a breath of fresh air for the franchise, it's something else entirely. Something great, sure, but not an AC game.
or some people actually do not like rpgs. What if assassins creed was one of your favorite games and you find out they switched up the formula and now its a full on rpg. For those who cant stand the rpg genre i guess i understand where they are coming from. Just another angle to look at it from.
They made so many assassins creed games with the same copy and paste formula, now we have something different and better
I hate to read comments like those, because it is as far from the truth as it can be. Instead of going on with the formula that made AC great and implement some nice innovations to make it feel fresh again (what I agree the franchise needed) they just fucking copied and paste from other games.
It started with Origins. They just decided to do it the RPG way like The Witcher and similar games. No innovation just copying. They decided to make AC now a combat focused game and implemented a Dark Souls - like Combat system. In Odyssey they took the Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor and copied it. Now we have dialogue options and can choose between a penis and a vagina Character (it is really nothing more than that). All these things are no innovations. They are just copied and paste from other games. They are NOT "something different". When you say it is better, than it is your subjective opinion and I respect that. But I don't understand why copy and paste of other games formulars is better than a copy and paste of the own unique formular.
AC was an innovative Open World game in the past with a great an creative story/characters and gameplay that no other game franchise had. Now it is just the poor mans "every year release" The Witcher with XP booster in it, because the progress system is broken and instead of patching it Ubisoft sell the fix only for real money.
R.I.P AC franchise. I miss you...
@@ysoserious8526
i agree
look at this clip at 7:05 , he just fooking teleports to the target.
I'm very immersed great job Ubisoft
looks like you rely more on "abilities" than tools/weapons. Think this is a game for casuals and im utterly disappointed lol
@@plumbob109AC was known as one of the most realist serie games and in this you can just tp to kill ???? WTF
yeah, if they just put car racing and call it assassin's creed: hot wheels would you like it?
As a huge history nerd, the draw of the assassin's creed games for me has mainly always been about being able to run around (and murder people) in a historical setting while playing as an interesting protagonist. And while I did enjoy the ongoing conflict between the Assassins and Templars in previous games and the twists that it put on the historical context not having it in the game doesn't really bother me too much (Besides as Johnny pointed out it is still kind of there with Kassandra/Alexios and the cult of Kosmos). Overall I still consider Odyssey an Assassin's Creed game despite the changes.
No, it’s clearly Smackdown: Just Bring It
Best comment
Great game
Anyone who has progressed the main story mission enough to meet their father knows this is an AC game
In regards to the way the game relates to the precursors, yes it is an AC game. I can't help thinking that the game would benefit from shrugging the label of assassin's creed though. I think the key story reveals would have so much more impact if you never realised that the game had those key relations to the series. Also considering how few and far between those key moments are, shrugging the AC name to attract detractors of the series might have been a smart idea.
For me this was the best "assassin's creed" game they've ever made.
Then they would just be crying that they got sold a reskin of origins, and that Ubi doesn't make new games they just resell the same thing ten times. It was a loose loose, they went with the one that sells more games and assumes the fan base has the mental capacity to under stand that bloodlines went back before some dudes made up a creed.
People have got to stop nitpickin stuff. Yes it has RPG elements, but I'll be damned if it isn't the same AC gameplay where I can crouch for days pickin ennemies one by one. So I can't one-shot every ennemy like before ? Great, it means killing a boss will be a tough thing to do and I won't spend 30+ hrs spamming the same button of assassination.
I've played and loved AC2 at the time, but at some point you gotta move on. You hear everyone asking for bigger games, then they ask for your character to be godly and kill everyone in one stab...
It also fixed ACs biggest problem for people that enjoyed the game but got bored. AC always had this big problem for me, where the games start off super strong, with new mechanics and tools at your disposal every hour or two... then you have them all... so here is your list of guys to stab, go get stabbing. The progression really died off for me, and with gameplay so repetitive (I enjoy the hell out of it, but can you really deny that it used to be a lot of the same?) I think I only ever finished the first game... cause like, after a while parrying and insta killing gets old. Sprinkle in some RPG elements and remove fall damage however, and god damn if you don't have the finest RPG of the year.
Like, imagine for a second that game without the RPG bits added in... you unlock all your powers in the first 10 hours, then... 50 hours of sneak-stab-run?
@@reidwallace4258
so the fix is to add crappy abilities that make the game easier?
The real question: Does it matter? As long as it's a good game, who cares if it is part of a bigger series?
The video missed the most important point as to why it's not an AC game. With the Animus, you're supposed to RELIVE the memories of your ancestor... not choose your favorite gender and make choices that lead to different endings. That doesn't make any narrative sense because as the past games have shown, the animus is meant to relive and reach full synchronization of your ancestors (to see events exactly as they saw which means 1 story with 1 ending). This game treats it like a simulation where you can just change what your ancestor lives at your leisure. Ubisoft already said that the canon protagonist of Odyssey is Kassandra, so WHY is Alexios evem a choice unless it was just to sell this game on an rpg gimmick that has no place in the series. Origins had the perfect balance because you stick to 1 story and RELIVED the memories of Bayek, not rewrote them.
I agree, the game does fundamentally break the existing story. However that being said, it's a game and it's a great game, it's very fun. I'm not to worried about it, honestly I'm just having fun playing it.
So you can roleplay a modern day assassin reliving memories of someone from the past, but not the actual person you spend 95 percent of the game with? When YOU make a choice, that's the choice the ancestor made. That's it. Just because they give you as the player the ability to direct the story doesn't change a damn thing. It's how your mentally handling it that makes it a problem. (For you) If you'd prefer they hold your hand the whole time, go back and replay the old games. I'd also recommend you don't play Odyssey with exploration mode on, if hand holding is your thing. Guided mode is what you want.
@@nic_asg Haha, looks like I hit a nerve with you. If you're so into choice then you might be in the wrong franchise given that AC has basically never really been about that narratively. You sound like you'd enjoy Odyssey and Fallout games (nothing wrong with that). Also, funny you mention which games I play because I actually do prefer to play Origins most. That's just me though. If what I said bothered you so much, go back and check the foundations AC was built on narratively. Has NOTHING to do with holding your hand (Origins was the perfect balance of exploration and narrative). Also, by your reasoning, EVERY game with a written set story is "holding your hand". I think your confusing a storytelling with gameplay features.
@@BTmethius i agree origins had it right and made sense with the animus. I also like have choice of character again too but i want for it to make sense like origins did. They should have left the choice to choose character, dialog was cool but not good for the series imo ..
@@BTmethius You're right I do enjoy Odyssey and the Fallout games. And true enough that Origins was the perfect mix of both. But fore, i just prefer more of the later.
I like Odyssey as a nice if somewhat tedious rpg but not an AC game. The setting is good, the story is good and it looks nice. However for me a proper AC game is centered around stealth, social stealth and parkour without having to think about leveling up, looting etc. The challenge should not be how to beat a random npc in a fight but to find creative ways to find and assassinate your designated target using the above mentioned skills. Also with these earlier settings we are losing the historical realism that was big unique aspect of previous games.
Aside from the social stealth Odyssey is the best post Ezio era game in exactly this department. The game actively rewards being stealthy and is challenging but fair at the same time. I got some serious AC2 flashbacks playing Odyssey. The gear and loot only add to the experience. At least for me the Assassin' Creed part is the best thing about Odyssey.
the Assassin build in this game is ridiculously OP, but most people are going for the Warrior build for some reason, so it may not look like an AC game for them
I play Warrior/Archer build,it's not the most OP build in the game but it works and it is really satisfying.
I remember when Ac black flag was hated at for for not being an "assassins creed" game because of the ship and pirate theme of the game. Now it's one of the if not the best of the series.
One of the best things about Origins and Odyssey is that the old mission requirements have been removed.
Previously, if you were spotted, it was over. Assassins don't fight their way out of a tight spot, according to Ubisoft.......they desynchronize!!!
And let's not forget about getting 100% synch on each mission, and all the horrible bullshit we were forced to do to not feel useless.
All that's gone now, and we're allowed to truly approach each situation exactly the way we want to. And THAT'S why I don't give a fuck if these are Assassin's games
anymore or not. They're the way the series should've been from the start.
I was sceptical when origin first came out but over all the changes in assassin's creed origins and odyssey make the game more enjoyable and adds more content let's face it the other games you complete the main missions and then it's boring (at at that assassin's creed is my favourite game series) while now theres side quests and to the question of whether this is considered a proper ac game think about it the game shows you the origin of the templar order as the cultists. And for anyone unsure of whether to play it I would definitely recommend it.
This game is a masterpiece that brings to the life what the Assassin's Creed universe would soon be all about and why it was important for the Assassin's to be created. The appearance of Juno at the end tells a lot about her and her future endeavors. Juno was always about controlling humans and the world, just like the Templar were, thus why she created the Pieces of Eden. Let's you really understand how much she was manipulating the Templar's and Assassin's in the later games even though she wasn't mentioned in all of them. Odyssey put in place why it would be very important to stop the Isu's will in the future. This game was needed because the series was getting to be repetitive.
I don't care whether it is a assassins creed. It is fun, I love it
The Witcher's Creed: Odyssey.
Nah more like
The Witcher's Creed: Skyrim
i still think unity had some of the best systems. Def the best parkour and stealth. That said im loving Odyssey so far.
if only the game breaking bugs weren't there ... at least did they fixed it then ı might give it a re-try
I like Origins fine as a game but I would have preferred the gameplay of Assassin's Creed games stay the way that it was. Earlier AC games weren't RPGs and stealth was more important than open combat. I haven't played Odyssey yet, but infusing player choice into the character kind of trash cans the established lore of how the animus works. From my time with Origins I find there to be a lot to do in the big open world but a lot of it feels like repetitive filler and the journey to travel between quest points feels like a time suck after 40+ hours. In previous AC games I spent more time trying to avoid combat and now the point seems to be more about killing everyone. I think Origins and Odyssey work fine as spinoff titles but they will never truly feel like AC games to me.
@Nathan origins stealth was GARBAGE. Stab and run and it forced you so hard out of stealth. No good stealth options but stab and run and shoot bows. That's it!! Ac2 had better stealth options. Ac2 through syndicate. In ac2 I can jump from a parachute and shit and alot more. So no origins stealth was GARBAGE. Yes odyssey stealth has improved and I like it but get origins out of there. I liked the character in origins but the story could have been alot more and alot longer. especially when you are talking about the beginning of the assassin's. Origins should have had the long play hours of odyssey which is 50 hours to beat the campaign at best. I beat origins in a day which was pretty disappointing.
@@sinistrous9169 and origins (and it looks like Odyssey as well) are bow and arrow simulators
I agree. Origins and this seem like well made games don't get me wrong. But I personally preferred the old style and just can't get into these new one to be honest.
@@Sirwest299 1 thing jn origins was the assassinations werent as fluid. The slomo was often useful but took away the flow, it was less stealthy and the hidden blade can't be used as a weapon so is way more limiting
The older AC games werent challenging to me I literally beat the games using fists I didnt like the one button click for a counter an finish
The shield throwing kills me 😂
My opinion great with mercenary and cultist and overall running around other than having to do 100 side quests to start a main quest
for me, origin and odyssey is even more assassin-like game than its predecessor. like u said, in older games, we used to hit counter button to one shot everyone. unless the mission needed me to remain incognito, i would just blaze through 50 guards, unless i wanted to roleplay as an assassin.
in these games, i would need to think twice before an open fight. i definitely dont want to fight a tank, an elite ranger, dagger-wielding woman who spam special attacks and big shield guards at the same time without thinning out the army first. thus i would need to use ikaros, wait till night, learn the local map and specialize in assassin skill tree to become an actual assassin. it's a more satisfying feeling than the older games tbh. so i really enjoyed the changes they made.
I say still Assassin's Creed, basically since the start of the series they at least hinted to Adam and Eve, two of the first humans with the 'sixth sense' and if memory serves they led the rebellion and assassinated Isu, Odyssey in essence continues what they did, long before the Brotherhood was made
Saying Odyssey is not an Assassin's creed game due to the lack of a hidden blade/ lack of assassinations, is like saying Farcry 5 is not a Farcry game just because its not on an island.
But I digress, it continues the story of the original game, we see more of the Isu and what they left behind more than ever, i remember how alot of us once wished we could get an AC game that took us to the time of those that came before just because we knew next to nothing about them, now we get the chance to see more, hopefully in the future we get to see even more.
The combat changed but I think it's better now, no more one versus one/two, now if you don't pay attention and act, you are going to have a bad day suffice to say.
Eh, I disagree. The combat may be better, but it sacrifices so much just be an RPG. And I felt nothing during the entire game and thought that killing Cosmos members was a chore because they had no character.
I'm level 25 and had no idea about hitting down on the dpad to have another 4 ability slots. I kept switching thwm out and was annoyed. Wtf?!?!?
And how do you have 7 adrenaline slots at level 16?????
It branches on new ideas for the AC series, plus it gives us a more clearer insight to what the Isu where capable of, such as to be related to Leonidas or just so happen to have built Atlantis as a library, who knows whats in store for us in the future AC games, but i really want to see more mythical creatures that also just so happened to be created by the Isu.
Plus i really like the idea of the Cult of Kosmos, ads something new to explore and uncovering each cultists is pretty exciting, i already have an idea who the leader of the cult is but i wont say it for spoilers sake
I'll be diplomatic and say that it should have been named as
Ancestors: An Assassin's Creed Story
Just like Rogue One and Solo in Star Wars Series.
or just plain "Odyssey"
My answer is yes it is. You're still doing the same thing, just now there's more of an RPG flavour.
As much as some fans hate it I'd say the modern day is the key thread that ties the series together. The Assassins and Templars trying to find out about Isu technology is the most important aspect from a story standpoint for me as a long time fan of the series. Odyssey goes in very heavily with the Isu stuff (and I love it for it) and that is the key connection to the rest of the series, not the Cult of Kosmos. The reason you're viewing these memories is to find these artifacts, more information about those who came before and stop a global catastrophe. What annoys me more is how they've almost removed the modern day storyline in some of the later games when this is the story that has been in all the games so far. Heck Juno the big threat to the world was killed in a comic! A comic! But that's a rant for another time...
Eh I disagree, sure it connects to the Isu, but it's forced in. Also people seem to forget that the Animus can't change memories, yet you have choices with wildly different endings. even though only one is canon.
odyssey was before even the creed of the assassin brotherhood was created, this is the creed: "Laa shay'a waqi'un mutlaq bale kouloun moumkin.
("Nothing is true, everything is permitted" in Arabic.)" "We work in the dark, to serve the light. We are Assassins."
now if you could show me one reference to that in assassins creed odyssey i would be happy to call it an assassins creed game
The Order believes in a strong set of values that strictly govern their way of life, referred to as "the Creed". This Creed consists of three tenets:
"Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent."
"Hide in plain sight, be one with the crowd."
"Never compromise the Brotherhood."[8]
These tenets permeated every aspect of the Assassins' daily life, as well as their fight for "peace in all things". The Assassins carry out their duties through political, strategic assassination, in the hope that killing one individual will lead to the salvation of thousands. They also believe that they fight on the behalf of those who do not possess the abilities, resources, or knowledge to speak out against those who abuse their power.[1]
now in Odyssey you are allowed to kill innocent people, does that obey the creed? no, so whats the point of calling it assassins creed, it is the assassin's creed, creed of what? creed of the brotherhood, but in odyssey you dont even find one reference to that creed and you dont even follow that creed, so my friend, if you want you call it an assassin game, but not an assassins creed game.
It is because the modern day. Some people may not realise it but all the games are all about modern day story, ubisoft is just doing poor job on that so people dont focus it.
No, it doesn't really feel like Assassin's Creed anymore to me, but it is still very fun (minus the micro transactions).
I kind of wish they'd go back to basics in the next game (in terms of story, not necessarily gameplay). But they probably won't.
I just wish the protagonist dressed in similar robes to the other games. Its aesthetically pleasing and is iconic to the series
This is one of the best AC games I've ever played since BL. I love the new RPG elements and optional choices when talking to different characters which has an affect on the overall story. There are a few missed tricks like the one on one cut scenes and voice overs when taking down a main story enemy. 'Confirm kill' seems a bit cheep and a bit bland but the game is absolutely massive so I can appreciate why certain features that make an AC game an AC game aren't present. Still a few bugs present on PC, mostly with trying to load quick saves and mission counters on sea missions but I'm hoping these issues will be sorted in future updates.. Amazing game overall, very happy.
I tried to hate it but the fact is that it's a damn good game..
Can you address the microtransaction problem EG as it was less than lacking in your review.
The games length is artificially inflated so people are pushed to get booster MTX. It matters.
> Highly respected and reputable critics
> Arbitrary anecdotal commenters on youtube
Hmm I wonder who I'm more likely to be swayed by?
I love what they've done with the franchise with Origins and Odyssey. Honestly I'd love if they revisited the first game and remade it with a similar expanded world (without changing the story, of course.) I'd love to see the Crusades come to life in the same way as Ptolemaic Egypt and Classical Greek did.
The main problem that I have with the game is not lore. It is combat. Origin, Odyssey, and even Syndicate all changed the combat style of the game from a stealth based combat game to an open world RPG with different combat styles and level walls. It is quintessentially different in its core gameplay from the “true” Assassins’ Creed games.
I think it’s funny that people were complaining about Assassins Creed getting boring a formulaic yet, when Ubisoft changed the game up people were still mad. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t thing. I personally like the new direction. Syndicate and Black Flag were the last of the good “old style” Assassins Creed games. Unity could’ve been great if it wasn’t for all the problems and the online component.
Origins was great, exploring a fully realized Egypt was amazing. The story was also pretty good. I haven’t gotten Odyssey yet but, it looks amazing. I can’t wait to travel Ancient Greece.
I admit I do love playing odyssey but simply put, whether it’s called assassins creed or not, it shouldn’t exist
When I first heard that odyssey would not feature the creed, I was a bit annoyed. But now I am playing odyssey and I am completely ok with that. Odyssey is surely my favorite AC game. When you look back at games like AC 2 it is (in my opinion) quite flawed. I think it is mostly nostalgia keeping the die hard AC fans alive with the opinion that odyssey is not a real AC game.
Been a fan of the old and new type of ac game. It needed a change the old formula has run its course.
To me, Assassin's Creed was always about virtual historical tourism. Seeing and visiting historical settings, climbing historical buildings and getting a sense of the scale, architecture and engineering required to create them. The incorporation of mythological creatures sours that historical ambience a bit. Odyssey also doesn't play much like an Assassin's Creed game. On the higher difficulties, assassinations of targets is frequently impossible to the point where you'll only do a bit (or a lot) of damage to their health. Odyssey feels more like a 3rd person action Titan Quest game to me than Assassin's Creed. They should have made it its own thing like with Skull & Bones.
Odyssey is arguably my favorite game of all time, even rivaling the Mass Effect trilogy. It's an action RPG set in a time period that no other game has been able to accurately portray in such detail. Although I would have liked to see them have focused more on the present day story so that we aren't questioning whether or not this really is an Assassin Creed game at its core. Odyssey can easily have been a trilogy story arch with tangents to the core A.C. franchise without sacrificing cannon. 95% of the game is amazing 10/10, but the flimsy attempts at linking the A.C. story in the present day scenes are caught reaching with plot holes larger enough to perform a leap of faith.
honestly, my biggest problem with the game is the shift in combat. because i went pure assassin i had a lot of trouble with conquest parts
I don't think that it is an assassins creed game because of it being 400 years before the brotherhood but it don't stop it from being a great game which it truly is and I'm loving it
It focuses more on the first civilization than the creed which I liked
This one of ..if not the best AC gamewise. Sure doesnt have the "feeeling" of Altair or Ezio but a good change i would say, variety is good.
I have been primarily sneaking around literally "assassinating" people. It has the naval mechanics of Black Flag(people may say that too isn't an AC game), it has the climb us this tower/tree/cliff to reach a sync point to reveal the map, it has you helping peasants and assassinating important targets... It follows the same 'secret society in history plot line' they all have... it has modern day people using an animus to go back in time and re-live these peoples memories... (kind of breaks the lore if you're making choices though)
The only thing this game does differently is the combat style which revolves heavily around abilities, the choices in dialogue which minimally impact the story line and an abundance of differently stated gear which allows you to change your looks and support your preferred combat style. Which you could say is just the evolution of the game and the recent popularity boom of the RPG genre.
It's easily identifiable as an AC game, imo it's probably my new favorite AC game and i'd guess anyone who thinks it isn't an AC game hasn't actually played it...
Fr but I missed the hidden blade and the creed.
Why do people say it isn’t assassins creed and how would you combat their arguments?
The main argument is that the game makes stealth far to hard to use without maximising equipment for it. The best part about how ac used to be was going to harder sections and relying on stealth to get through. Also too much grinding up levels and syndicate managed to do it really well where you would get just the right experience for main missions to always be at the right level.
I'm a 5 year + player of assassin's creed, and as soon as I heard about Odyssey I was against it. Origins is like a Prequel to the 'Assassins'. Odyssey, is like a prequel to a prequel. Assassin's Creed needs Assassins, and their Creed! Be like watching Spider-Man, but without Peter, or the powers. Now, I did get the game today, I'm enjoying it. But, I feel like what made an Assassin's Creed, is almost just completely gone. Like a childhood friend that you loved, but has changed a lot. And I blame greedy Ubisoft. It's always money, money, money.
I can't believe people are complaining about an excellent game and what's more, it's way more game for your money! After the Witcher 3, I tried Dragon Age and Skyrim and was terribly disappointed by both because they did not even come close but this has definitely scratched the itch in a big way. Super happy and I desperately hope this RPG style never ever changes.
It felt like in Origins they didn't want to do stealth; the animations didn't feel as weighty and satisfying compared to previous games and there weren't many skills that radically changed how you could play compared to older games.
People forget that an Animus can only relive memories, not change them and since there are choices with different endings, well.
Not true if you explore the Isu vaults in Origins it’s says how Layla’s animus is different from others an basically using “The Isu time code” can predict alternate timelines/calculations hence we get choices.
It’s defo a change but they explained it
@@devaneboyd5284 That.... Is kinda dumb ngl.
It's an AC game because the creators said so and as long as it's still connected to the franchise I think it's fine. It's their game not mine anyway. I'm not shallow enough to say that no hidden blade means it's not AC
It is an Assassins Creed game for sure. It predates the notorious cult of the Assassins which is derived from the Arabic word Hashashin (Murderers) who formed a cult in Syria 1000 years ago (This was depicted by the AC game in the Al Tair) and therefore Odyssey cannot be linked to that cult. However, the cult here is by another name; Cosmos. It is the same principle as the narrator says but with much much better graphics, gameplay and open works instead of linear gaming of the olden times. So enjoy the best game of the AC ever ! BTW, I'm playing Assassins Creed Black Flag at the moment and I'm having a great time with it !
Yeah those same people saying this game is not an assassin's creed game, if the elements in this game were used in another game not called assassins creed they'd call it a clone or wannabe
I pose this question for everyone, would the game be any different if it was set after origins where the protagonists are one of the first to join, it would have much the same story.
I don't think it counts because the story isn't even canon to the rest of the franchise. If you want to know what really happened you have to read the damn book. They might as well of started a new franchise and used a lot of the assets from AC so they can have more freedom to make the game as good as possible while still pleasing people that enjoy the AC formula. Odyssey just comes across as neither a good ac, or RPG imo.
Oh what was in the book because...
.
.
.
The ending where Kassandra hands the staff to Layla suggests that the next game will be about ending the conflict between Assassins and Templars by wiping out both orders. Why? because after living to be over 2400 years old... Kassandra sees the Assassins as a necessary evil in keeping the Templars in check, but not as a force for good in their own right.
I wish it would have been the start of a fresh new franchise. I honestly can't stand the Assassins Vs Templars gibberish. It's still what's holding me back on buying the game I am genuinely interested in.
Well, this game is about exploring how Humans came to understand how to use First Civilization garbage. Thus leading to the Animus.
The present day parts of the game DO deal with the Assassins vs Templars conflict quite heavily though.
It’s a real assassins creed game because Ubisoft made it and named it assassins creed.
When will consumers get it through their head that they don’t decide what others people creations are. This is Ubisoft’s creation and decision.
It is. The same way halo reach is still a halo game. Despite having no halos, flood, chief or cortana. It’s just an extension of the already established universe by going back before the main events of the original games. I.e. assassins and templars.
I'm leaning toward the side for it. BUT, I'd honestly say there's a strong argument for both sides. The core mechanics are still there, so it feels like an ac game to me. But add in the fact they're saving the appearance of someone resembling the assassin's we know for the dlc, not the main story, and it kinda muddies the water. Still, i'm largely agreeing with those for it. But all and all, I'm really enjoying the game. And isn't that the most important part: entertainment factor?
I never liked rpgs and because of that i was hestiated to play origins. But i decided to play origins. Loved it. Ive played about 50 hours of odyssey and i love it. Odyssey is over all an ac game
Hypothetical scenario: A Star Wars movie, set on a single planet, let's say Tython, pre-hyperdrive civilization. It has the original Jedi who venerate the Ashla, and the OG Dark Jedi who embrace the Bogan. It has heroes, sidekicks, adventure, a dark lord, and an epic sword fight.
Is it still Star Wars?
Yes. Certainly, new ground for the franchise to tackle, but yes.
Ezio Auditore da Firenze once spoke of the maxim at length with Sofia Sartor, who found it rather cynical. However, he told her that the maxim was not a doctrine to be followed, but merely an observation of the world.[4]
In detail, he explained that "To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic." Now think about Odyssey gameplay and think if this is true.... :D
Yeah, Kassandra definitely thinks about stuff like that. :p
To contribute to this argument I believe that AC odyssey is the metal gear solid 3 of the series: different gameplay mechanics and a different story style, but mainly why I picked mgs 3 is because it was all before anything was relevant in the series and while you were playing Naked Snake instead of Solid Snake and fighting the Shagohod instead of Metal Gear you still feel like you're playing a Metal gear solid game and mgs isn't the only example I can provide. Silent Hill, Persona, Final fantasy, Call of duty. They all had different machinics and stories for each game they pump out and while different are all under the same name as before and we're not complaining about that, are we?
The short answer is yes it is an assassins creed game.
I would like to know your opinion on the matter; what you agree or disagree, what you might want to add on.
I mean ac 4 black flag didn’t quite feel like an ac game either. At the time, i described it to friends as “the best pirate simulator to date.” Maybe odyssey isn’t an AC game but it is undoubtedly a good game and I hope Ubisoft keeps up this trend.
It is a ac game. The open world has never been better in a ac game
It's a shame that the open world isn't properly utilised for missions. A lot of people would be happy if they make more interesting levels than those lame outposts and forts.
still better than flags,feathers,animus fragments and other crap collectables.At least there is a reason to finish stuff in forts unlike pointless collectables and a lot of quests take place in forts so I don't know what you are complaining about.
The player's individual skill is replaced by a spreadsheet which dictates how the player should experience the game. It essentially forces the player to grind for 'experience' and blocks the player's progression in main story narrative. This is a stark difference from the past installments. Is animal taming really necessary? Just how many TH-cam gameplay videos out there that show a tamed animal fighting alongside with Alexios or Kassandra? It's a haphazard implementation of a gameplay feature that most players hardly ever want to use.
I think it is considering with some proof that would take to long to explain, if they got their hands on the Apple of Eden and saw the future, then Alexios would create the Templar order and Kassandra would create Assassin order.
ok so what he's saying is "well it plays the same but 5 minutes later I say it plays different, the narrative is still there but again a few minute later I say it's different, but ehi I like it so yeah it's an assassin's creed game"
I still don't get why there's no continuation of Bayek's story. It would make sense considering his official founding of the Brotherhood at the end of Origins. We could have had another amazing Trilogy on our hands
Well it breaks the lore on every turn.
Origins & Odyssey just feels like a backdoor launch of a new IP which I feel might have benefited story wise had it been a new IP rather than fitting into the main AC continuity.
AC 1: An assassin from the start
AC 2: Joins assassins near the end
AC Brotherhood: Assassin from the start
AC Revelations: Assassin from the start
AC 3: Join the assassins mid-way through
AC 4 Black Flag: Join the assassins near the end
AC Rouge: Start as an assassin, then join the Templars
AC Unity: Join the assassins mid-way through
AC Syndicate: Assassin from the start
AC Origins: Join (and create) the assassins in the ending cut scene
AC Odyssey: Not an assassin
Looking at this a different way:
In 6/11 AC games, you are an assassin for the majority of the game
In 5/11 AC games, you are not an assassin for the majority of the game
Odyssey is not a huge departure for the series. Is there really that much of a difference between joining the assassins in the final act and not joining the assassins at all? I don't think so.
Well said.
Except that Ezio was an assassin and worked with them together long before he officially joined the Italian brotherhood.
Can't keep doing the same things all the time if you want longevity. Every franchise that has lasted long periods of time had to switch things up and evolve at some point, and that's exactly what the AC franchise is doing. Ubisoft understands they can only do the old format for so Long Before everyone gets bored and stops playing altogether. By adapting to the new generation of fans, they are in expanding on the franchises legacy, and if the units sold and review scores are any indication, they made the right choice 💯
I'm really enjoying my time with Odyssey. Way more than I did with Unity, Syndicate, or Rogue. Combat still needs a bit of work but I still say it's better than the boring waiting to counter Arkham style combat. I know a lot of people like it but it's just super boring for me. X, X, Triangle, X, X, triangle, X, X, triangle. Way over simplified imo. Though I will admit, there will most likely be a day when I am tired of huge open world rpgs, but for now I really like Odyssey and super happy with the new direction.
The Animus VR headset looks rather silly. How could Layla turn around to look behind in the virtual world when she is physically lying down? She's experiencing it like a 3D movie?
I'm not gonna lie we need an open world AC based on the continued battle between the brotherhood and templars
I never enjoyed any Assasin's Creed games until Origins and Odyssey everything up a few notches more.
There is no Creed. There was always the Creed in an AC game.
Akzork the creed in origins didn’t come till the end - not much of an argument
The creed may not exist , but the idea of the creed is here.
the Creed was a background detail in most games so minor that you never actually saw the full thing.
Just play the freaking game and stop complaining. It's a great game, enjoy it.
The Creed is only an observation of reality, that doesn't mean someone who lived hundred years before can't come to the same realization on their own.
I think Assassins Creed refers more to the classic gameplay rather than the 'Creed' itself. If this game were released as any other name it'd have been criticised for being too similar to Assassins Creed. Similarly like Call of Duty was WW2 but eventually evolved to the current craziness but kept the core gameplay which made it Call of Duty!
Kassandra is consider as proto assassin because for her opposition against the cult of kosmos (proto Templar).
Odyssey is an Assassin’s Creed game because the people who make those games made this one and called it “Assassin’s Creed”...
I think the option to play as either male or female should have been applied the same way it was applied in Syndicate where you can actually switch characters between missions. It made a lot more sense from story prospective why you'd be able to choose and switch between them as both grow characters grew up together and did missions for the Assassins.
But Odyssey does not explain fom story prospectivs how whichever character you choose always happens to be the one who had the staff. Also can we mention how you're only playing the game to find out where Alexios or Kasandra hid the staff which SPOILER has nothing to do with the search for his/her mother for the most part?
Naji Ishag how can you switch to one another, when the one too don’t pick ends up being the villain?
It's a really great game...this is what the series should have been from the beginning. I always thought while playing older Assassins Creed games that wouldn't this be great if it was a rpg and now here it is and I can understand why some fans complain because they love the structure of the older games and that's fine but I could never really get into them as much. This has been the first one to really hold my attention and don't get me wrong it isn't perfect but I think it is a step in the right direction for the series. I think that this series would have been even better if they had maybe dropped the Assassin Creed name and maybe went with something more fantastical and mythical ie historical mythology but as a new franchise then they wouldn't be beholden to the AC franchise and it would really help and I think it would sell but they are relying on the name and brand recognition of AC and I think it will hold them back creatively in the future...Still a amazing game though and the world they have build is really second to none at this point in time. You can tell they put alot of work and love into creating this game so credit where credit is due.
There were assassins before the creed,darius,bayek etc,the game even gives you missions where it says ASSASSINATE (name here) people are too quick to judge.
I say it is for no other fact than Ubisoft says it is. They own it & they made it so their word goes.
It may be called Assassins Creed but it surely isn't the classic AC most of us grew up playing. It stopped being that when it tried to copy the Witcher 3 formula and went to the expansive open word and tried to become an RPG.
This is typical Ubisoft, they made Origins and it had some success so they copied the formula and made Odyssey with a few improvements here and there and changed locations. The next installment will repeat the process, and so on... Starting to sound familiar? I guess I should be happy there isn't a Battle Royel mode...yet!!
If you look at this game, you would say its an AC game
*proceeds to show a teleportation skill kill*
I wouldn't care what a game is called just as long as it's fun to play. I can see some of the arguments for and against this game. And I can agree with both of them. But I say everyone should just play it for themselves before deciding weather they like it or not. Till then just don't say anything.
Answer: no, but it's a great game nonetheless
but the whole cult of kosmos leads to the Templar order so it should be
The answer is no for the simple reason that you just made a game called Origins LAST YEAR. It’s just backwards placing an Assassins Creed game set before the events that led to the creation of the Assassins. Also compare Alexios and Kassandra’s climbing and fluidity to Bayek, Ezio or Altair. The latter three are much more loose and nimble with their movements, staples of the Assassins. Odyssey is a fantastic game but they could’ve released this without attaching AC to it and I guarantee it would’ve sold just fine
Red Shinobi this game is more about icu and Adam and Eve tho. It does make sense
Deadman Arcade That doesn’t change the fact that it has nothing to do with the Creed or it’s creation, just about the events of the war, which to this point has nothing to do with the brotherhood which is the basis of the series.
Red Shinobi but the icu does have to do with assassins creed, assassins creed rogue was still an assassins creed game even tho we played as a Templar lol
Deadman Arcade it comes down to how Odyssey portrays the Isu and handles their importance. The brotherhood was formed without note of the Isu in Origins but depending on how someone interprets Rouge and Ezio’s interaction with Minerva the argument can be made
Deadman Arcade it doesn’t dispute your point but let’s be fair most people skipped Rouge lol
It’s an amazing game, I’m loving it, it might be my new favorite over black flag, I haven’t finished it yet so I’ll reserve ranking it after I do finish the game but to me it’s definitely worthy of the name Assassin’s Creed
this is an assassins creed game o matter how you look at it. it just seems the ones criticizing it are having a hard time playing it without the handicap triangle counter button. best ac game yet better than origins
You forgot to mention that you’re protecting ancient artifacts from the first civilizations... yes it’s a fucking assassins creed game. People will complain about this series no matter what they do. I’ve played every main title since the first. Origins, odyssey, black flag, 2 and brotherhood are my favs. Honestly the gameplay in Odyssey is so fun that it’s hard to go back and feel like AC 2 isn’t too repetitive.
Ezio goes drinking with Kasandra, wakes up with a broken pelvis and a splitting headache. Snu Snu, baby.