I just don’t like choosing a protagonist like in Odyssey and Valhalla to then say later that one is canon like that is just stupid at least in Origins it was one protagonist and no dialogue choices because you are following his story not yours that’s why I like mirage because of its simplicity
Ubisoft has been under pressure by SJWs for a long time to include female and alphabet protagonists. They wanted to pacify them, but at the same time didn't want to anger the rest of their fanbase, so what they actually did was the worst of both worlds. Most people know that the protagonists of the last 2 AC games (Odyssey and Valhalla) were supposed to be female, but Ubisoft decided to include a male character(Odyssey) or an option to change the gender to male(Valhalla) because they thought a female protagonist wouldn't sell well. Therefore, for all the trailers of the game, the promotional material, the cover, the leaks and EVERYTHING, they used the male protagonist, but only when players started the game, they realised the protagonist was female by default. This annoyed both and upset both sides and was an extremely scummy move by Ubisoft because they did not pick a side and instead tried to milk both sides for all they were worth. What most people don't know is that the protagonist for AC Origins was also meant to be female. It was Aya only. She was supposed to be the original assassin and the founder of the hidden ones. Again, Ubisoft waved her aside in favour of a male lead (her husband Bayek) and she got only a small role at the very end of the game, where she kills Cleopatra & Caesar and then founds the Hidden Ones.
I AM OF THE FIFTH KIND:-Lore Fanatic Lore Fanatics are fans who really love the stories in Assassin's Creed games. They're super into how everything connects, like the Isu, Assassins, Templars, and all the myths. They enjoy exploring the stories in all the Assassin's Creed games, no matter what type of game it is. Whether it's RPGs, platformers, or anything else, if it's got Assassin's Creed lore, they're all in. They get excited about finding hidden secrets, solving historical mysteries, and learning about the myths in the games. Basically, they're big fans of the stories in the whole Assassin's Creed universe.
Yeah they were like When a new Assassin's Creed game comes out, fans always say: 'Ew, this game is trash.' Six years later: 'Wow, this game is so underrated.'"
Origins is a good one ! Ancient Egypt, context, Bayek's story, creation of Hidden Ones... But Odyssey and Valhalla are good games, but not good Assassin's Creed !
Yes then just like work, you do the exact same thing over and over again for 50 hours while pressuring one button for the whole parkour system. Such a good game😍
@@Przemo9050I’m almost done with valhalla rn and I can tell you, the side quests are a CHOICE. You can easily go through the main story without doing much of the extra shit
@@disasterpiece7583why aren't they good games. Witcher 3 is praised to high h*ll, but the gameplay is terrible. AC trilogy at least was fun...except Valhalla lol
I am definitely a purist. The Isu stuff is just so convoluted and uninteresting to me. If I had my way with making an Assassin's Creed game, it would just focus on the conflict between the Assassins and Templars. I wouldn't include any Isu stuff in it at all. I wouldn't even include any modern day stuff, but that's a different topic.
If ubisoft hat the balls to call this new series something else, and simply continue giving us great AC and not unfinished messes we all would have been happy and lets face it the decline in sales was mostly because of unfinished and broken games, not because "people were getting sick of assassins creed." Spread the games out over 2 years and none of this would have happened
Then Assassins creed would have died out long ago. The whole reason they changed was because fans were complaining about every game being the same. What makes it assassins creed is the story. Is fallout 1 not a fallout game because its not an FPS?
@@goldenburger836 fans were complaining about lack of polish mostly, and fallout 1 is fallout even though it's not fps because it came before the fps POV, also Fallout 4 is not fallout because the story is terrible you can draw your analogies
@@goldenburger836 ??? most fallout fans would agree, what kind of logic are you throwing? though I am arguing with a burger what did I expect, too much internet for tday
@@michealharrison3502it’s just fun to shit on ac Valhalla. Wait for two three more new ac games, the same crowd will circle back to Valhalla like it was a second coming.
Origin's was good gameplay wise but story wise I hate the story, everything bayek did was like out of the frying pan into the fire. I'm more meaning the whole story was turning bad into worse. Odyssey was a excellent game but it kinda did leave the creed out until roughly the end of the game or really just until you play the dlc's. I'm still playing Valhalla so atm I have no comment for that game
After hearing criticism of both Valhalla and Odyssey, I was relieved to find them both very enjoyable. I agree they aren't very similar to the earlier AC games, but at this point, those older AC games seem a bit boring. Being frequently on sale for $15 helps too.
I strongly dislike RPGs in general. I hate having to compare overly complex stats of weapons, look at "percentages of critical hit chances", armour stats, buffs, ... Conversely, I like stealth games. Any of the older AC games that wouldn't force you into open combat, I would try to complete not only without being detected, but without even being spotted. On top of that, I liked the style of the older combat, where you could actually see swords make contact, your character hit an enemy and them flinching, ... The whole hitbox thing is a major step back in my eye. When it comes to AC, I also like historical accuracy, and the "historical tourism" factor. I would much rather have a highly detailed historical metropolis to explore than a huge map containing some settlements only connected by non-descript landscape where "anything goes" for the developers. Don't give me some fictitious islands on a disproportionate map of Greece. Give me a 1:1 map of Paris where as many of the recorded buildings that would have been there at the time actually show up on the map. And definitely don't give me minotaurs, cyclopses, ... to fight. AC was always a fairly realistic series with some scifi sprinkeled in, usually making an appearance at the end. It was never a fantasy series. Finally, respect the lore. The animus contains a representation of the memories of ancestors. You can only relive these memories, you can't influence history. That means one single ending, no dialogue options and no choice of gender or protagonist. For all these reasons and more, I despise the AC RPG games with a passion.
Fair point but you also don't like rpgs and I feel like if you dislike a game because of its genre you can't really give an unbiased take on the gameplay at least Imo Odyssey was fantastic actually imo it's easily top 5 best AC games(black flag is my number 1 and Odyssey is my personal number 2 but in an objective sense some of the older ones are betfer) Valhalla is extremely underrated and Odyssey was fun asf(I'm sorry but I fucking love the idea of having bosses to fight. AC Games were getting to a point where they felt too similar that's part of my reasoning for loving black flag much. It changed alot. Syndicate was alright and unity just had a rough launch. But I disagree entirely with your opinion
I am a Purist. I never really cared about Isu or mythology Templars vs Assasins being in historical background is what Assassins Creed really is. I honestly dont think the franchise would be so repetitive if they continued the same formula. After all there are diffrent maps,diffrent historical eras,diffrent stories,diffrent gameplay systems etc. You are right about RPG making more money tho but I hope Ubisoft use that money for a great classical AC game. I think AC Unity was great in fact almost perfect and I am playing Syndicate now(I skipped it for some reason). If people wouldnt criticize Unity from the start I dont think Ubisoft would have to go to a complete RPG direction.
What u didn’t care bout the isu mythology wow 😂🤦🏽♂️ I actually like it I remember when I was 10 or 11 I was like I hope they make a game where they dive deep to the isu mythology lore and they did an odyssey an Valhalla are my two most favorite after ac rouge an 3 cause Shay an haytham are just to complex
@@Grandtemplar305 They would be intresting for me if this franchise was about mythology(greek,norse etc.) or if it was a science-fiction game but this game was always intresting to me for the fight between Templars and Assassins in the historical background how it affects history. That unrealistic Isu stuff kinda breaks it for me. It isnt a big problem tho because it was more in background until AC Syndicate.
I love how you're one of the few AC creators I know of that actually seems to enjoy the whole series and in every video I just hear your enthusiasm about the series. I was actually wondering which of the 4 categories you mentioned you think you are yourself?
I appreciate that! I love all the AC games (except ______) As for which category. I honestly would say the purists with a slight mix of ezio loyalists haha
@@TheHiddenOne690 Damn, interesting! Would you count AC Origins as a game that still fits within the Purists sphere? Eventhough it's seen as part of the RPG Trilogy? Just wondering because you have stated numerous times that Origins is your favorite game :))
I for one didn't mind Origins becoming rpg, as that one is a good game. My problem starts on Oddysey when Ubisoft mess with the lore that it becomes confusing. For example, the animus is machine that let you relive the dna memory of someone using the dna sample. How can you add choices and multiple ending when the animus isn supposed to let you only relive the memory? It's not like animus is a time machine.
Go through the Isu temple messages in Origins. It foreshadowed Odyssey having branching paths. It could be a side effect of using DNA from the person being channeled, and in Odyssey Layla has to use the book by Herodotus to fill in gaps (using DNA from the spear and not the body since that’s still alive and kicking) so that could give leeway for how canonical outcomes are in-universe. The less historical record to corroborate events the easier to handwave alternatives or even identify which are alternatives and which was the historically canonical path.
@@AgentN-s5u The explanation given for the choice of gender in Valhalla is that Eivor being a Sage of Odin gives the Animus enough leeway to facilitate the choice. Maybe this plays into branching storylines. The conclusion has Layla join someone who is heavily implied to be Desmond in sorting out branching timelines to find the path with the optimal outcome, a visual way to show alternate paths and a tree evokes Yggdrasil.
Similar to action-over-horror Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6. You do it once, it's novel. Twice, it's sour. Thrice, it's gone. Also, it's quite surprising by how similar history the 2 series are. The series starts out wowing people, then Capcom & Ubisoft milked them with sequels and spinoffs which lead to the big change (RE4 and Origins) before fans started to resent the change too.
@@minedude33 well i disagree, but i s'pose it doesn't really matter since there not makin' Assassin's Creed for folks like me anymore since the reboot, but if you enjoyed it that's good
@@josiahtheobald689 We're literally the same folks, I enjoy the old games (ACIII is my favorite) and I haven't bought Odyssey or Valhalla, but they finally brought actual Assassins back to the foreground much like RE brought horror back
Honestly - I like them. I can appreciate why people say “it’s not assassin’s creed” but if the games hadn’t of made the change, people would be moaning that AC was stale and boring. There’s room enough for both styles of Assassin’s Creed games, OG and RPG, and that’s ok! 😊
Honestly I see them as a story that happens before the hidden ones and like who they work with they help them out an shit cause honestly Valhalla an odyssey probably got one of the best story an I don’t care what the ezio fans have to say sure he’s a pretty boy who have charm and can fight an who turn from this immature brat to this wise mature smart man which what I really like bout him but my favorite ac character ain’t ezio its haytham
They only said it's stale and boring because the series went no where after AC3. It was all nothing burgers which Ubisoft tried to milk. You know what I'm talking about, the historical world tour simulator that Ubisoft really wants to sell. The actually meat on the bones; the modern day, was gone. It still feels empty, where Valhalla made a small dent. It also didn't help that they released it annually. That's game fatigue for a whole lot of nothing throughout the years.
Casual player here. I’ve loved Assassin’s Creed, have memorabilia and love the lore. The being said, I do have criticisms to give each title. I can honestly say I’ve replayed all entries except for Unity and Syndicate. Now regarding the RPG trilogy, I loved Origins, initially I hated Odyssey but forced myself through it grew to love it, not as an Assassin’s Creed game, but something of its own entirely, I finished Mirage which was a nice nod to the originals. I throughly enjoyed it just wished it were longer. I’m replaying Valhalla currently while waiting for June 10th for news on Red. I’m eager to see how everything affecting Ubisoft impacts the final product, but also keeping my spirited high enough to enjoy it.
They should of just created “ warriors of history “ having rpgs in this new game franchise and that would be really cool and if they wanted it to set in to the ac universe I guess they could but if they did that and then continue perfecting assassin creed from unity everyone would be happy. And bringing in rpg gamers to Ubisoft. if they didn’t ruin the launch of ac unity assassin creed would be very different.
I really like Origins. Bayek is a strong contender for best protagonist in the series. I'd put him on the same pedestal as Ezio. The game is gorgeous and there's tons of little details to appreciate with Bayek's interaction with the environment. I also adore parts of Odyssey. I got 200 hours of playtime before even hitting the credits. The sense of exploration, the bite-sized story telling for regional side quests, and the RPG mechanics were all a blast to play around with. I played Valhalla... It was a game. The thing about the RPG games isn't that they have nothing to offer. It's that they remove so much of what matters to me when it comes to Assassin's Creed. Parkour became an afterthought. Mechanics were disincentivized for loot grinding, abilities on cooldown and stat sheets. This is already noticeable in Syndicate, which I would argue is the better starting point for the RPG games than Origins is. I also didn't care for Syndicate for much the same reasons as the games that came after; it just felt like a Ubisoft game, rather than Assassin's Creed. Like a Watch_Dogs situation; games that take place in the same universe, without sharing a core design philosophy.
Ezio and edaward(my personal favorite) were my favorite protagonist. I never finished organs because I just wasn't that invested in it but Odyssey was a fucking blast(really good game just not a good ac game) And valhalla imo is underrated asf if they separated the games everyone would be happy
I have not played Odyssey or Mirage yet, but have played Origins and Valhalla, and all mainline games before Origins. I would say that the RPG series does not give me the same Assassins Creed gameplay that the games before Origins did, and I do prefer them over the RPGs. That said; it does not make the RPGs bad in my opinion. But I don’t like the enormous amount of weapons and stuff in the RPGs and the highly bloated skill-trees. I miss the tools and slow upgrades of weapons through the story like before, or unlocking a special set through exploring and side quests. I don’t like the mythological parts with God-like monsters and “special powers”, either through the weapons or skills. The Isu technology was nice, but now it’s become quite ridiculous. I prefer a more down to earth/believable approach when it comes to the Isu relics and storyline. But I don’t hate the RPGs. They are good games overall, if not a bit bloated with silly filler content and the like. It would be preferable to go back to the style of Unity and Syndicate :)
Although I study Ancient Greece, for some reason I cannot explain, my favourite game is AC Valhalla. It is my favourite game of all time alongside Ghost of Tsushima and RDR2. Odyssey is my 3rd favourite AC game after Mirage, and Origins is tied for 4th with Black Flag
I love odyssey the most but I have to say Valhalla was the one I spend the most hours in probably cause when I was younger I always wish I was born in the Viking era but with odyssey the world felt so alive and fun to be in the story was just amazing one thing I can say bout Valhalla story was that it felt like I was watching a Viking show which isn’t bad in my opinion I beat it last year an now I’m going for another walkthrough
Well the fans are never gonna be happy. People were complaining that AC was getting "stale" and needed something new. Then ubisoft makes changes and then everyone's pissed off. Its a lose lose situation for ubisoft really. Not that im defending ubisoft, but wow assassin's creed fans can be insufferable sometimes. I love the old games but I also love the new games. They all have something to offer.
I am an rpg enthusiast. I play assassin's creed 2 back in the day but I probably would neverhave come back if I hadn't seen the e3 teaser of Odyssey and how Bioware-like it was. That being said I don't think people on either side are fans of microtransactions.
I am a fan of ongoing support for games, and a reason to invest more in games i enjoy most; microtransactions allow for that. But it is a fine line of whether those transactions impact gameplay or not. They are yet to impact ubisoft games substantially emough to cause concern imo, but that is coming from someone with 10's of thousands of hours in multiple mmos who has seen all the manipulative tricks in the business regarding monetization. I don't find ubisoft too bad in my experience.
I guess my main problem with the RPG games is it has divided the audience into different factions and therefore an AC game will never hit the heights of the earlier games because a faction of the audience will always be alienated and less likely to buy or enjoy the game. Odyssey alienates fans who want the assassin fantasy and Mirage alienates the RPG fans. They seem to be taking their time with Hexe and Red, so hopefully they're taking in all the fans thoughts, praise, criticism on the series and 1 or both of the next games leave most fans satisfied.
Yes the RPG games have divided the fan base but that's because the RPG games are objectively worse games. Take Origins for example (the best of the RPG era and a game I really enjoy) - Origins is fun but it's still a terrible AC. Bayek is a great character and how Ancient Egypt is portrayed is great also, but the rest of the game is dumbed down. In Origins enemy difficulty is reduced to simply to number, whereas in old ACs such as 2 the more difficult enemies and bosses just fought better (dodged and countered more). The combat is simple hack 'n slash and fast dodges, not like the slower more weighted combat of older ACS, for example the counter window differed depending on the type of weapon the enemy had. You could disarm, be disarmed, grab and throw...really the fighting was more interesting in older ACs.
AC origins was an AC game, Odyssey was a slug to get through and Valhalla was a Viking game, not that a Viking is is bad but it wasn't an AC game to me
Odyssey wasn't even in a timeperiod when assassins existed lol. that always annoys me, why would you make a game called "origins" that sets an origin story of the assassins and then immediatly make another game that is set before origins
So true! I actually really enjoyed Valhalla (it was also my first ever AC game so I'm a bit biased) but it's not even close to being an AC game. As for your point about Origins, I often find it a shame that it gets grouped with Oddysey and Valhalla because it is just so much greater of an AC game.
The only RPG I have an issue with is Valhalla because I think it’s just too much game and the live service didn’t work well with this series. Origins is a solid title that I’ve played multiple times and still enjoy. I do wish that they would’ve delved more into the actual creed because that was a huge focal point of lore in the first 6 games in the series. Odyssey is a fantastic game. I think it was genuinely fun to play. I think if Ubisoft would’ve stuck with the initial name of “Odyssey: an Assassins Creed Story” oddly enough people would’ve probably had less of an issue with it not having much lore outside of the Isu stuff. As a bigger fan of the older games in the franchise, I can see why old school fans dislike the RPGs. Removing the advanced parkour and the focus of the creed completely changed the identity of the series. Arguably Ubisoft chose to go in a direction that appealed to a larger fan base and better supported microtransactions. For the fans who spent their money on the first 9 games in the series, I can see why they would be upset by the series completely changing direction.
Stop hating Valhalla is great just not asassassin creed as others. Odyssey is the worst in my opinion, i respect origins although i wish it had better animations other than that game is good
@@agirlinabasementofyourdaddyit’s really good when you do you just have to play the story don’t go hunting for mysteries go for the gear and play story do the mysteries as you cross them
the only bad thing about Origins was when I was FORCED to play as Aya. I just wanted to go back to Bayek and do open world stuff, but had to just finish the aya sections already.
Aya either should’ve been the only playable character or not in it at all. The fact that she kinda hijacks the ending of the game makes me think that she was supposed to be main character but all of her sections except for the last one feel like an afterthought
Ubisoft advertising teams, and the draw of nostalgia have kept me coming back for too long, even after disappointing releases. Shame on me. Red will not be a purchase for me. Games are becoming too large, bloated, and unfulfilling. We need a tighter game world such as unity was but with modern scale.
Tbh i don't mind the switch of genres. I played action rpg games for some time so it's not a big loss to me For me the best thing in this series is being able to explore different historical settings. I don't care about if game focuses on stealth or not. Just gimme that sweet sweet virtual historical tourism Edit: oh yeah i am more of a casual player
I'm somewhere between a loyalist and a purist. allow me to expound on my attitudes in detail: Altair is still my favorite protagonist and the crusades is still my favorite setting, and there are elements i like from AC1 that were given the boot with AC2, for example, while crowdblending in AC2 is more utilitarian, it changed the whole vibe. in AC1, Altair has to find a crowd of scholars dressed like him in order to crowdblend, and he pretends to be one of them. i loved this because it was ALTAIR'S experience, the reason the assassins dressed the way they did was to blend in with those specific people, Altair has to use his own cunning and has to specifically look for them or plan his strategy around where they are, etc. In AC2, Ezio picks a random group of people and then the people and ezio's cape all magically change colors. it isn't Ezio that's blending in, it's the ANIMUS hacking the memory and altering those things, like how the Tardis in Doctor Who automatically translates spoken language. it made for a smoother game mechanic but sacrificed both story and immersion. in AC1 it felt like i was using Altair's cunning to take advantage of my surroundings, starting to think like my ancestor and use HIS tactics, which perfectly aligned with how desmond was slowly learning from his ancestor's memories and also experiencing the animus' bleed-over effect, blurring the line between the memories of ancestor and descendant. as Ezio, it just felt like the Animus was helping me "cheat", it didn't feel immersive or like it was desmond or even ezio who's cunning or agency mattered, it had no greater implications, and just felt like the animus was modifying the memory for my convenience, which then begs the question of whether the memories seen in the animus can even be trusted to be correct/reliable. the animus just sort of felt like an overglorified Xbox, now. AC3 was a great game and i enjoyed connor's story, but being forced to play as the uninteresting Haytham for far too long left me feeling eternally trapped in a bad tutorial mission, and i could see the templar twist from almost right out of the gate because of how obviously templar Haytham's attitude and mannerisms were, leaving me just saying "I GET IT, he's a templar, ooooh big reveal, get on with it, when do i get to actually play THE GAME I PAYED FOR?!", and the ending was HOT GARBAGE that left such a bad taste in my mouth that i almost skipped AC4 entirely. AC4 was the best pirate game EVER, and a DECENT Assassin's Creed game, my only criticism is that the attempt to save the modern story and continue without desmond was kinda flat. it was a decent way of retconning their screw up with the AC3 ending, but it wasn't GOOD. it essentially just said "Desmond's corpse was stolen by templars and has been cut into little dna samples" and then basically just turned Abstergo into Ubisoft and made you one of Ubi's game testers, which felt a TAD bit narcissistic, and more than a little lazy, but at least sort of worked. everything between AC4 and Origins i basically have the same opinion on, decent games, just really couldn't get into the stories. i felt Rogue was weakest, thought syndicate and unity were better. everything from Origins forward was just a waste of my time, the stories didn't interest me, ubisoft starting jumping the shark, they abandoned the plots they had set up in previous installments, the RPG elements completely turned me off, the parkour engines were abysmal, basically everything that i liked about the series had been thrown out unceremoniously in favor of ill-fitting and inferior, but highly marketable trash with less and less originality with each title. Valhalla was by for the worst offender on that last point, just lifting whatever they liked from god of war 5 and the Vikings tv show right down to Eivor having Ragnar's raven tattoo and Odin dragging you around by your axe like thor uses mjolnir in GOW. AND ODIN, my god man, what happened to this series? we are first made aware of the precursor peoples and Juno in 2, and we go through the whole ezio trilogy and 3 speaking to her in the animus before we finally meet them in person at the ending of 3, and desmond just straight up DIES. now we've changed pantheons without ever actually finishing the things set up with the greeks, completely forgot about the judeo-christian angles they laid the seeds for early on, and now we're getting into slugging matches with the Allfather??? remember when they removed the crossbow from ac1 before release because of historical inaccuracy? i miss THAT Ubisoft. if they wanted to make a god of war style rpg based on the vikings tv series they should have just done that. for someone with norse heritage and an obsession with viking stuff, Ubisoft managed to do the impossible and made a viking story i absolutely could not give a rat's ass about in a viking game i'm proud NOT to own. and why are we making multiple choice decisions when reliving past events already set in stone? i've always held the general attitudes that: 1. Ubisoft shouldn't have just thrown out the seeds they laid with AC1 and the Ezio trilogy. i was deeply invested in the whole Adam and Eve angle which ubisoft were too cowardly to stay the course on, likely for fear of alienating christians, losing the demographic and baiting a drama scandal. 2. they should have actually gone somewhere with the "Greek" precursors we started with before jumping around global religions like a fresh christian convert shopping around for the right church and denomination. 3. killing desmond at the end of AC3 was a terrible choice, and if they were going to do that, it should have been the end of the franchise right there 4. ubisoft should have taken advantage of the popularity of edward kenway and black flag, and given us an Edward Kenway trilogy just like they did with ezio before him before moving on to another assassin again. Thank you for attending my TEDtalk.
@@inigostudio170 it's not so much nostalgia as it is preference. i'm not a huge fan of rpg style games to begin with, with rare exceptions, so the newer one's were never going to appeal to me, just on that level. i suppose you could call it nostalgia regarding the old story hooks that never saw fruition, but again it's more a stylistic preference, the early approach to tying in conspiracies and the potential of those story hooks. the adam and eve hook could have led to a sort of alternate origin story game in a sumerian/babylonian setting, which could have been cool since a lot of the abrahamic foundational myths are very similar, and the whole vibe of that story hook felt like it was implying the story of how Enki/Ea created man as a servitor, but made us too smart by adding the god's dna, and angered the other gods, the story of how enlil flooded the world to try and silence us because were were annoying and bothersome. the whole idea that the precursor people created us and regretted it. i personally don't see why we have to choose between the old style and the new rpg style, ubisoft could just do both. the zelda games are a good comparison, some people prefer the more realistic and detailed games like ocarina, twilight princess etc, some prefer the more cute cel shaded style aping 2d like wind waker, and nintendo just released both styles of game intermittently, keeping both sides of the fanbase sated without alienating anyone. i don't see why Ubi hasn't done something similar.
@@novinceinhosic3531 and yet the troll text had more substance than your own response does, leaving me to assume you're correct, since mindless NPCs can sense their own. it's like the evil twin paradox, i don't know which one to shoot. say something only the _real_ NPC would know, lol. or you could, i dunno, engage the topic? what's your favorite AC game/setting? missed story hook? or do you not even play them and just sort of wandered in looking to make an anti-NPC PSA, and decided to thread necromancy a dead discussion to do it? at least the NPC had a valid, if dickish, critique to offer. what are you contributing to the discussion to drag me back here 4 months after even the NPC stopped caring? NOTHING. what does that say about your personality? that an NPC troll 4 months ago had more to say and was more relevant and engaging than you are now? oh no, i "took the NPC's bait" or whatever. so? at least i took _FRESH_ bait, you're over here _scavenging a rotting carcass._
@@gourdguru dude, you are in the YT comment section, not a text-based RPG. I just told you in case you were unaware, but now I see you actually take pleasure into your masochism. Keep up the thankless great work!
I honestly feel if Ubisoft named the game Valhalla not “assassin creed Valhalla” it won’t get this much criticism from the fans. I remember being the only one that liked unity during its release among my friends and school now every one likes it like be for real and open your mind to change
Me personally, the reason I don’t care for RPG elements jn games like AC is because, im one to follow the story for how it is suppose to be told. I don’t want to choose the outcome, I want to immerse myself into the game in the way it was meant to be told, as there’s always been one protagonist, and there’s always been one outcome, and I want to continue to experience the outcome and connectivity between the games as they are suppose to be intended. Also, the overwhelming choices in customization is a bit ridiculous. I’ve played more hours in Diablo 2 that I can remember at this point, then trying Diablo 4 where EVERYTHING is customizable, down to the make up and even choosing specific stats to boost the builds…it made the grind I loved to find the gear I needed feel absolutely pointless. I don’t care about “this gives 1.35% for X seconds” none sense, just give me short, sweet, and to the point choices so I spend more time actually playing over needing to “look cool” or do math to min/max by build. Also, level capping is dumb if you have open world, because it makes the very aspect for there to be open world go from fun to feeling/being mandatory: exploration. I don’t want to be told that I have to explore and grind to level up my player/gear to advance, because then it turns into curiously and excitement, into being a chore and ruining the fun entirely. If you have a level capped open world, all you’re doing is essentially making a linear game, which goes against the concept of open world, so either fully commit to the open world concept and remove any level caps, or just make a non open world game with a linear path/story to follow, you can’t have both, and you won’t please any fan base with making a counter productive game with a leveling system that caps out when you explore the open world…which is what you’re suppose to do in an open world. Lastly, the greed from Ubisoft has become blatantly apparent, and that is a very biasing factor. I understand your statement in “they have made some good games recently”, however, that doesn’t discredit the point that those “good games” are so very few and far between. Mirage was an enjoyable game, it was my first introduction to AC as far as playing a game in the series, and now going back and playing the games in order starting with AC1 I understand the criticism as it was a DLC made into a full game, but overall, it actually feels more AC than any of the RPG games, both in combat and immersion within the story. AC1 Had basic combat, Mirage does too, and that’s one of the biggest criticisms and AC1 is a very highly regarded game by many. For Ubisoft to outright say they want to place the burden onto players will never make the idea of them making good games recently justified to glance over saying the “quiet part” out loud. Also, their involvement with forced DEI agenda/narrative pushing companies like Sweet Baby Inc sours expectations with any future games, as they would rather bend the knee to the vocal minority who demand DEI/identity politics to be the forefront of the games, and once everything is said and done, all those demanding change never were going to truly support it, so it leaves actual fans with bad games all for the sake of chasing pennies while losing dollars. If you were interested in such a topic, I which I talk a LOT about AC, make sure to check the video out here: th-cam.com/video/xw-biPeUkz0/w-d-xo.html I’m not just trying to plug my video because of views or anything like that, but because of all the DEI none sense that’s been surfacing, it is a conversation that studios, and the consulting companies they work for, are now being forced to address, many of which are desperately trying to run damage control about, and it leaves people questioning if what they were doing was the “right thing”, why would they need to run damage control for it?
I don’t think rpg elements are the elements (actually, I love Origins) The problems is the amount of magic/fantasy/mythology presence in the story as well as in the gameplay and lack of the classic assassins vs templars, add to that a worse parkour system and less effective stealth that encourages you to do open combat instead of seeing it as a last resort And I am a purist
I consider myself a "sort of" purist. I don't hate the RPG Trilogy, Origins is in my top 3 of favorite AC games, but I will always like the old style more than the RPG style. Every time I play the Ezio Trilogy or Black Flag I get so nostalgic for the gameplay.
tbh i understand where ppl are coming from when it comes to the classic style of ac games, but having a big enough map where we have multiple cities was just a game changer. i love espionage (which let’s face it assassination is somewhat associated with spy stuff) it just elevated the gameplay for me at least. especially with ac Valhalla, although the cities were not exactly what i would have wanted. all that game needed was bigger cities. the distrust areas with the added pressure of the zealots roaming around was just too goddam fun for me. absolutely fire. plus the order members were hidden scattered around and you had to geo-locate them yourself (at least i did) just added to all of it. as it’s called irl “find, fix, finish”. i literally bought mirage played most of it and got bored of it and switched back to ac Valhalla because i did all the work my self regarding finding the order members, although the notoriety system from mirage was the best part of the game we need that moving forward. anyways if i knew where the person was but didn’t know their identity i would go to said place on the map and try to find them myself without all of the hints, it was incredibly fun for me. so whatever Ubisoft comes up with i hope they keep these four qualities: hidden order members, elite warriors that track you, multiple big cities (at least two), and the notoriety system (or the wanted levels for you gta fans lmaooo). i think they can’t go wrong with these features in ac games moving forward.
I have played every AC game and although my favourite games are brotherhoood unity and black flag mirage is a really big breath of fresh air from the likes of odessey and valhalla having great stealth good parkour brilliant world decent story good side quests and tolerable combat. although combat is critisized it's actually much more realistic than the RPG counterparts as well as having satisfying finishers with diverse enemies. all in all it's a great AC game
@@TheconspiracyTheorist69 the stealth is not impressive at all. The combat is actually worse, it's neither the "RPG", only looks like it, it's neither AC1-2 basic combat, it's just in between and it terrible, specially with the teleport-kill ability on steroids brought from Odessay. The parkour is meh, barely any improvement since AC 1, and we are 16 years difference, still less skill expression than it used to be in AC 1 and Revelations, let's not even talk about the AI or poor scripting.
@@novinceinhosic3531 first of all, it's combat is not bad, it has a light and heavy attack as well as a parry and dodge. So I don't understand what you're saying. Furthermore, it has brilliant stealth, with a nice detection system, multiple tools and the teleport ability is completely optional. The parkour mechanics are not bad because it's the same thing. Jump to go up, much less janky than AC black flag. Also the environment is great for parkour with unique rolls and swings. You don't need to use much combat if you're good at stealth and teleportation is negligible. It has basic combat and enemies die within 3-4 hits (black flag took 4 hits) the parry is the same thing as counter and you can actually dodge attacks. It's not the best AC but is a nice refresher from the RPG trilogy
@@TheconspiracyTheorist69 I get the feeling that either people haven't played the original game in 15 years and have forgotten how it was, or that people were playing it without actually spotting or appreciating the details, if one ends up saying that Mirage is in any way comparable to AC I.
I really disliked about the newer games that everything is too much. I have a family and wanna have fun with games, not just search for collectibles for 100 hours. Origins had a lot of great storys to tell. But Valhalla . . .
As a fan of Role Playing Games, I personally like them. However, Odyssey and Valhalla made you feel as if your choices not only don't really matter but, it messes up on how it basically doesn't let you continue the story that you started with the characters that you loved Playing as. Now, I also love how the series did do something different with historical events while teaching us on what happened as well. But, when I play an R.P.G., I want to be able to continue my save file over to the next game and feel like I am still telling my story. The fact that Kassandra and female Eivor have became designated as the "Canon" characters, it makes me feel as if I don't have a choice not only on who I play as but I basically have to submit myself to spoilers to understand what events are "Canon" in the games and the franchise as a whole. But, I do still respect the fact that they did try so,thing different on the Mythologies of Ancient Egypt, Greece and Scandinavia plus the United Kingdom.
I'm a proud purist, but I'd love for ubi to release both rpg type ac games and the more traditional type (but modernized to be in line with more recent open world games).
I’ve been playing the series since the original. I had a lot of fun with the RPG trilogy and enjoyed my time with them. However I did get a bit burnt out due to the length. Odyssey took me over a year to finish and it was the only game I was playing (this was back when I had a 3 hour daily commute). I finished the main campaign of Valhalla a year ago and haven’t been able to pick it up again, I still have the dlc and extras to do. They are fun, but a bit too bloated.
Love the RPG tribology. Valhalla get's a little monotonous at times but I still really liked it. Odyssey just flows and the fight animations are the best. Origins has my favorite protagonist by far out of all AC games. Granted I haven't played AC3, Rogue & AC4 yet.
I would classify the RPG ACs as lazy. Enemy difficulty being reduced to simply a number, whereas in old ACs such as 2 the more difficult enemies and bosses just fought better (dodged and countered more). The combat is simple hack 'n slash and fast dodges, not like the slower more weighted combat of older ACS, for example the counter window differed depending on the type of weapon the enemy had. You could disarm, be disarmed, grab and throw...really the fighting was more interesting in the older ACs. They had some historical accuracy to them as well, where as now you get God weapons with glowing lights and stupid stuff. They're just Whicher clones really and play just like that or God of War. AC is not unique or that interesting anymore. The only positive addition from the RPG era is ranged weapons. Bayek I think is a good character also. Overall I like Origins but I can admit the RPG era is objectively worse. And no I'm not a Black Flag fanboy. While a lot of fun it is a terrible AC game in it's own way - the combat is simply just press 2 buttons and you can wipe out an entire platoon. Plus the game gives you dual swords and pistols from within the first few hours of gameplay - you are completely overpowered from the beginning. Unity was a return to form but it's brilliance was overshadowed by it's bugs. The franchise was not growing stale as Unity's popularity proves, and the shift to RPG was not inevitable. If the franchise just continued on from Unity (smoothing out it's mechanics with minimal bugs), keeping to a more grounded world with emphasis on assassins and complex combat, but created a world which allowed the vast exploration of Black Flag, the franchise would still be loved. This base formula would keep the franchise going, and it would be the locations and stories which would keep each game fresh.
The RPG era of Assassin’s Creed seems even better to me than the first three numbered games. Not to mention Unity and Syndicate. The problem is that people are afraid of evolving, and the same happens with the Final Fantasy saga. You can’t stick to the same style for decades; you have to embrace evolution and new ideas. Origins and Odyssey are great video games; Valhalla isn’t to my taste. Nostalgia heavily influences people’s thinking. Unity is known for its good parkour, but nobody remembers its terrible narrative and its protagonist lacking personality. Even its villain isn’t memorable.
I like the quality of your videos. Nice to hear your opinion on this. I'd say Origins isn't really an RPG game, but it has RPG-like combat, which is the most notable difference from it and Syndicate, except the simpler parkour (of course many new features are added in Origins and some are taken away to fit the context). When Origins released, I loved it, but when I realized, before release, that Odyssey had player choices for the story, I was put off because I wondered 'how can a game like Assassin's Creed be an RPG game', and then I realised that the franchise I love is changing it's genre and direction. Eventually, I began to like Odyssey (Valhalla had potential but it has way too much tedious, horribly written filler content which are made mandatory to finish the main story). Also, the "assassin's creed" is in every Assassin's Creed game - showing the unique code and mentality of each killer, each protagonist, and their purpose in the overall narrative. That's an assassin's creed. Assassins can exist without Brotherhoods. Odyssey focuses on the wider world of Assassin's Creed, we can say.
@@Grandtemplar305 let's hope AC Red is not another quadruple-A game - I think we're not ready for something like that again (especially after 'Skull & Bones' became one of the games of all time). Let's just try to make good triple-A games first, aye Ubisoft?
@@Stealthful_ the ninja gameplay looks cool, but the samurai is just soulslike unpolished combat. I think the game basically will mix aspects of poor and unpolished Metal Gear Solid with poor and unpolished Elden Ring and make another unoriginal abomination staffed with micros.
I am part of The RPG Enthusiasts. I played the first two AC games back on the 360 and didn’t enjoy them. When I played Origins I fell in love with that game and put over 100 hours into it. The RPG AC games are my favorite. I’m looking forward to AC Shadows.
Gameplay wise, the shift to RPG made sense and was not that hated with Origins, as Origins and its DLCs perfectly balanced the new setting and gameplay with the experience of being an assassin. The simplest explanation is the hidden blade itself. After all the stealth you do inside a fort to reach a target or a soldier, and then your hidden blade rewards your sneaky tactics with a confirmed hidden blade kill. This was offset with the Phylakitai being immune to hidden blade one shot kills, but dealing a heavy damage for you being sneaky, and still had to have a boss fight to win. Odyssey removed this for even the minion soldiers, they all became damage sponges and the game became button mashing after the initial few bursts of skill attacks. Origins Pharaohs DLC is all about weird locations and boss fights, and it felt in-lore. You literally entered the afterlife to confront them, you knew this is not the real world anymore, this is some fantastical side. Hidden Ones DLC felt more grounded and a great expansion of the main story. It would've been nice if we got a dual protagonist game after Origins where you played as both Aya and Bayek in the respective regions of Ancient Rome and North Africa-Sinai Peninsula, and they form the next 2 Tenets of the creed, after them realising the first one, stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent. The RPG element is a welcome, it's great, the combat felt more reactive and engaging than before, unlike especially in Ezio games where it was just counter kills and chain kills. Ezio Games combat made you feel like you were OP, but now you have to be more dynamic with your fights. But the core tenets of what Assassin's Creed means is what has been missing.
I'm one of those who loved all three, I really enjoyed the large open world and the stories. I went back to playing the old ACs but they felt really old now, same feeling I had playing Mirage as well
Odyssey gives great freedom of gameplay that older titles dont give. Actually you can choose to play stealthy like in older games if you go with an assassin build(with good engravings of course). Been fan of older titles too. Story-wise they are better but osyssey has great gameplay value. First few hours until.you come up with a good build and nice engravings can be bit frustrating and overwhelming.but once you get going it is fun as as hell
I dont have a problem with the rpg style at all. Origins is one of my favorites in the series. With odyssey and valhalla, there are other aspects that ruin the games for me. In oddysey, not being able to one hit stealth kill on certain guards no matter what is really annoying. With valhalla, the detection system is an abomination and literally never works properly. However, I still think all of them are overall good games
I'm a casual player. I liked both RPG and older games. I quite like the complex storyline with new RPG games. I think they should release both RPG games and an Old style games. I think ubisoft did a good tactical move switching to RPG. I think codename red and hexe will be a huge opportunity to ubisoft and the AC universe. Bringing back the Creed and brotherhood back to games will be turning point. They covered Creed's past and now time for future 😇
I am a "fan" of the series ever since it was called Prince of Persia, and it was 2D... and pretty much monochrome, and i was a little boy younger than my now son, just as a context. My 2 cents is that every new installment added it's own weight to the legacy; i think it matters how old you were when you played the games, how long the games were out since you got to play them, what your personal preferences are with regards to places you like to see/visit. and so on. I for one am grateful that this series endured in one form or another for so long, and despite my personal bias at one point or another, i did and will play every assassin's creed game that comes out for as long as they can keep pushing them. It is very rare for a franchise to last this long and bring us on amazing journeys. Maybe Valhalla or AC3 or Unity is not your cup of tea at this moment, but who knows ... maybe in a year or two you will be in a different spot in your life and pour hundreds of hours in one of them.
I feel if Ubisoft never changed the formula, but instead delayed the time between games to resllt polish them even more, that would've stopped fans from saying it went stale. During that period when they were releasing a new game every year, the franchise began to feel like FIFA. But none of the actual games were bad. Buggy sure....bad...no. Having a 1 year gap between games would allow them to polish the game up more and make it even better and plus it gives fans a break so they don't constantly have a new game each year and actually have an extra year to really appreciate it. Tbh Ubisoft could still go back to the original formula and implement this method
I just started replaying origins and I'm hooked. I honestly don't know why I didn't like it when I played it years ago. I played for two hours and then uninstalled it and forgot about it. Maybe because I was expecting it to be more similar to Unity or Syndicate and not an RPG game. But I hoped into it now with the right expectations, and it's an awesome game, reminds me a lot of The Witcher 3
Fans were getting tired of the same old format every game so they tried something new.. fans still cried. You couldnt make the shizz up. Ubi cant win no matter what they do.
I'm a purist that only now many years after Origins is starting to play the rpg games. Not a fan but since they're free on PlayStation plus, I'm playing them. I really wish they'd go back to their roots and stop making everything so complicated
My biggest issue with Odyssey and Valhalla is that it kinda just feels like they're using the AC IP to sell these games that barely have anything to do with the franchise. If they wanted to make these games and set them in a different universe then I wouldn't have an issue.
I played almost all of the games (i think Black Flag, Unity and Mirage are missing up until now) and i enjoy the RPG trilogy most, because i’m an rpg fan and also i’m in love with greek and norse mythology, egyiptian and roman history as well. However a mercenary who is at the end of the game is the most famous warrior in the greek world, or a viking who participates in defeating basically every kingdom in England and becames the most feared viking kinda rejects the whole idea of an assassin, who should be hidden in the shadows. Not to mention Kassandra and Eivor (especially Kassandra) became kinda OP. For these reasons i understand some of the criticisms. But Odyessy will forever be my favorite game.
As a player who has played AC 1 through AC Syndicate, I enjoyed the RPG trilogy, especially Valhalla, since we haven't had many good Viking games, and it features a dismemberment system. That's why it's a top-tier game for me, surpassing Origins and Odyssey.
My issue with the RPG games is that it essentially has the same issues as previous AC games: too repetitive missions, the open world - while impressive - often feels copy-pasted, combat is functional but shallow, same goes for stealth and the story also is all over the place and varies from game to game imho. However, whereas pre-Origins AC games were 20 hour affairs and I was able to see past these little grievances I had with it, with a 60 or 80 or more hour game, these grievances became downright dealbreakers and unbearable. This is also compounded by the fact that I have more responsibility at work and in my private life and therefore less time for games (and honestly, I've also discovered other things that at the moment just feel more rewarding to me, e.g. reading about real history beats currently playing through a mostly accurate but still also fictionalized recreation of it). The reason why The Witcher 3 still works is because the world feels very personal very handcrafted whereas AC's recent games feel oddly lifeless to me. And the gameplay gets tedious rather quick. Now, I still think these are impressive creations and I'm happy so many people still enjoy them, but they are not my cup of tea anymore.
That was a very interesting take. I am not exactly a ubisoft fan, neither have I been into Assassins Creed for a long time. By your take, I would go into the direction of an 'rpg enthusiast.'. I love Ghost of Tsushima and Rise of the Ronin, as I am also a big fan of Fromsoft's souls-likes. My first Assassins Creed game was Origins and my reason for it was very simple: I love egyptian mythology. Combat, the world and Bayek were incredible. Then the successor was announced. With Odyssey I was initially incredibly excited, as I am part greek and really wanted to dive into these ancient times. The world was, without a doubt, absolutely beautiful and it was nice to have all the freedom you could have. The combat was expanded a bit, which was nice, but came with the problem of damage sponges. Valhalla was the one I enjoyed the least. I loved the combat and the additions made to it. But it clearly suffered from an identity issue. Whenever I wanted to finish a town quietly and get the chest, I was always forced to call the crew. And while I am more an open-combat-guy, I do love to wipe out groups of enemies quietly too. That and the story was pretty uninteresting to me, hence why I was glad after 60 hours to put the game down. I am someone who typically plays games like Bayonetta, Devil may Cry, Monster Hunter and Dynasty Warriors. Stealth games were not really my kinda style for the bigger part of my childhood. But Origins was really my gateway to another playstyle and showed me that playing fast and quiet can look just as elegant as juggling someone in the air with long combos. So, after all of that, I wanted to give one of the older titles a try and I chose Unity for that, as many are fond of it. I had gotten some positive encouragement from fans of the older titles to give it a shot and that I might enjoy it a lot. And I can fully understand now why people love the older titles that much. The satisfaction of going through a mission as quietly as possible, get close to your target and assassinate them feels the same as me pulling off those sweet perfect counters in an action game. Not to mention that a lot of youtubers make the older games look incredibly stylish with the parkour. But...they just aren't for me. While the parkour and stealth were incredible, the open combat in the older titles is a big problem for me. It was too restrictive for me. I need my balance of stealth and combat, which is why I adore Ghost of Tsushima and Rise of the Ronin. Especially the latter, due to its deep combat system. That is also the reason why Origins clicked with me so well and why it does to this day. Shadows will without a doubt get compared to both of them, especially with what is going on right now. But after having finished Unity, I see why people love the older games so much and I understand why they are getting frustrated. They offer something that has become lost with Valhalla. The RPGs are all great games, however, especially last two, are not AC. If they had given it a different name, or at least showed that it was a branche of Assassins Creed that focused more on the Isu lore, I think the reception would have been more positive. We will see what the future brings. Ubisoft hasn't done a good job recently with the public, so I will wait and see how the situation evolves.
Tbh many people also story quality drop as an argument to the rpg trilogy Somehow the rpg only started to actually suck after they started to decrease the rpg aspects
there's so many old AC fans hating on the new RPGs so I just want to get my opinion out here: I played every AC games since AC2, and I enjoyed the RPG format a lot (except Valhalla + Isu storylines). I enjoy the old formula but I love the customization and non-linear story progression even more. It makes me feel like I'm in control of my character. RPG is also more re-playable because you can try different things for each play through.
I would say I am more of The Casual Player. My first game in the franchise ever that I played was Rogue. Then from there Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla. Then I got into Unity, Syndicate, and Black Flag. So for me I’m just a fan of the franchise but I do like the current style of RPG ones particularly in Odyssey and Origins cause of Ancient Egypt and Greece.
A big franchise game like assassins creed should develop over time. You can not expect AC games have to be about stealth, parkour, hidden blade and templars for 17 years? And btw, Ubisoft never described how an assassins creed game should be like.
Ive recently played AC Valhalla on PS5, its the second AC game Ive played. In all honesty its one of the best open world games I've played, the world is truly stunning, I play with no HUD and it is very immersive. I love open world RPGs but I feel that this trilogy could have got away with NOT being part of the AC name.
I don’t think there is one singular reason the rpg trilogy is so unpopular, but I think many Fans just expected an assassins creed game. I’m sure the rpgs are fun, but I don’t have the patience or money to spend hundreds of hours just on one game, or way too much money on microtransactions. I’m happy to blow 60-70€ on a game that I play for 55 hours, but get a concentrated, fleshed out world, where I don’t have to grind heavy, just to continue the story. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy assassins creed so much. It’s like a big puzzle, and every sequence is a piece. I don’t have to look for the optimal way to rotate my pieces or smth, I just follow the instructions and have fun while hunting down some mean Templar guys. That’s why I largely dislike rpgs in general. Just syndicate was already a little annoying in that aspect. I think many fans just want to have casual fun, or a real challenge within a kinda sandbox. I mean, those sandbox missions in acu and acs were really popular. And looking at the hitman games, they too still work. Traditional ac died because of unfinished games, mostly thanks to acu‘s bad launch, which ig was interpreted as shrinking interest in the concept. Let’s hope that ac red becomes the last fully fledged rpg, and we can move on after that into Hexe. Maybe they’ll try a racing sim or fps this time.
Origins is completely fine, although we all want to play as the ultra stealthy assassin with great parkour, AC is WAY more than just stealth and parkour (and thats the reason why mirage isnt really that good) and origins nails all of those things, the stealth is actually better than many people say, and parkour, while worse than before, doesnt feel truly that bad, combine that with a perfect story that focuses on the characters, actually respects the creed, and the legacy of the franchise, its a great game, up there with ll and Black Flag imo.
I just hate the introduction of more mythological elements, monster bosses and ISU that look they represent the gods they are inspired by, rather than the people of an advanced civilization presented in the first games. So I guess I lean more into type 2
Purist, the setting is the most compelling thing for me. I’d rather have more 20-hour games in different places and time periods than a few 100-hour ones.
I'd say I'm somewhere in between RPG enthusiast and Casual Player. I've played a decent chunk of the AC games (2, 3, 4, Unity, Syndicate, all three RPG games, and Mirage), but I've only finished Valhalla and Unity so far. Part of that is because I just don't have all that much time anymore, but a big part of that is that those two games, despite being considered some of the worst in the series at one point or another, were the games I legitimately enjoyed. I'm not a big fan of the modern day plots (although I haven't played enough of AC2 or 3 to get enough of the Desmond arc to form my opinion), and both Unity and Valhalla feel like the most refined versions of similar previous games.
I'm more of a casual AC player, but I care about the lore. I think the RPG games wouldn't have received nearly as much hate if the main characters were simply assassins within the creed, cause the argument is almost always that they're not bad games, just bad AC games. I don't fully agree with this sentiment though, because I don't mind that the stories in these games function as prequels that depict the way in which (the conflict between) the Creed and Templars came to be, while also providing more insight on the Isu and all that. I actually really enjoy these games, both in terms of gameplay and story (Valhalla not as much). But in each one there's just something missing in the general gameplay loop, which they actually have in common with the older AC games imo. You kind of mentioned it in the video already, but really...the side activities, open world exploration etc are practically identical in each game, including the RPGs. So I do think that the RPGs are in many ways an improvement and natural evolution of the older games. And yet they're also a clear downgrade in terms of parkour, modern day story, having a single overarching canon story/ancestor etc, all of which are principal parts of the AC lore and what makes this franchise different from any other one out there. Generally I've noticed that these types of open world RPGs (regardless of the franchise/developers) are too repetitive and tedious, and have seen very little improvement or even any change at all in years now. Just about every game within the genre is basically just more of the same, but with a different skin. They lack innovation and creativity and because of it come across as mediocre/average games (the only exception within the AC franchise being Black Flag imo, I finally played it last year and have already replayed it, love that game to bits). That's what needs to change. I'm cautiously looking forward to AC Red though, I like what I've been hearing about it so far. Hopefully they finally improve the formula with this one.
I'm playing AC Odyssey right now, had a mixed expectation for the game, and damn, I'm definitely loving it! Seriously, I love the old games, specially Brotherhood, 2 and Black Flag (haven't played 3, Unity or Syndicate yet), but for now Odyssey is being at least top 3 on my list
I like playing the RPG games. However, I don't like them as an assassin's creed game. I hate that it replaced the old style of games and doesn't coexist with them.
I'm fine with the RPG's I just want to play as an Assassin. Ironically I do think Odyssey is one of my favorite games, I just absolutely adore the world and how colorful and rich it is. I played Red Dead Redemption two around the same time and the graphics just looked dreary to me in contrast.
As someone who started the series with AC Valhalla I have to say I absolutley LOVE IT! Sure, it's not an assassin game but with all it's deep norse and Isu lore it is defintley an Assassin's Creed game and the almost perfect viking simulator! Although I have to say I enjoyed Desmond more than Layla in the modern day part.
Today marks being on TH-cam for 1 year :o
Congrulations! Your videos are great continue the good work.
@@KuzeyAkkaya-sb2nk
one year of goated content. hope u go on for ever cause they are my daily watch!!!
Congratulations
Congrats! :D
You make interesting and fun content! Looking forward to another year with your videos :)
I just don’t like choosing a protagonist like in Odyssey and Valhalla to then say later that one is canon like that is just stupid at least in Origins it was one protagonist and no dialogue choices because you are following his story not yours that’s why I like mirage because of its simplicity
Thank you, finally someone else sees it!!
One protagonist. bro you forget aya
You can thank Ubisoft for that. I heard the higher ups didn’t think a female character could carry as the main character
mirage was mid at best keep it g.
Ubisoft has been under pressure by SJWs for a long time to include female and alphabet protagonists. They wanted to pacify them, but at the same time didn't want to anger the rest of their fanbase, so what they actually did was the worst of both worlds.
Most people know that the protagonists of the last 2 AC games (Odyssey and Valhalla) were supposed to be female, but Ubisoft decided to include a male character(Odyssey) or an option to change the gender to male(Valhalla) because they thought a female protagonist wouldn't sell well. Therefore, for all the trailers of the game, the promotional material, the cover, the leaks and EVERYTHING, they used the male protagonist, but only when players started the game, they realised the protagonist was female by default. This annoyed both and upset both sides and was an extremely scummy move by Ubisoft because they did not pick a side and instead tried to milk both sides for all they were worth. What most people don't know is that the protagonist for AC Origins was also meant to be female. It was Aya only. She was supposed to be the original assassin and the founder of the hidden ones. Again, Ubisoft waved her aside in favour of a male lead (her husband Bayek) and she got only a small role at the very end of the game, where she kills Cleopatra & Caesar and then founds the Hidden Ones.
I AM OF THE FIFTH KIND:-Lore Fanatic
Lore Fanatics are fans who really love the stories in Assassin's Creed games. They're super into how everything connects, like the Isu, Assassins, Templars, and all the myths. They enjoy exploring the stories in all the Assassin's Creed games, no matter what type of game it is. Whether it's RPGs, platformers, or anything else, if it's got Assassin's Creed lore, they're all in. They get excited about finding hidden secrets, solving historical mysteries, and learning about the myths in the games. Basically, they're big fans of the stories in the whole Assassin's Creed universe.
Very nicely put :)
Yeah they were like
When a new Assassin's Creed game comes out, fans always say: 'Ew, this game is trash.'
Six years later: 'Wow, this game is so underrated.'"
I’m with you on that, got all the games, books, mangas, comics and even the Assassin’s Creed Gold audible
Origins is a good one ! Ancient Egypt, context, Bayek's story, creation of Hidden Ones... But Odyssey and Valhalla are good games, but not good Assassin's Creed !
This is very true Odyssey and Valhalla is very fun at times but they do not deserve the Assassin's Creed title.
No Odyssey and Valhalla are so fucking bloated and empty boring. Full of pointless side quests.
Yes then just like work, you do the exact same thing over and over again for 50 hours while pressuring one button for the whole parkour system. Such a good game😍
@@user-xg6sx5ev9uat least combat is somewhat fun I guess...
Or maybe that's just me
@@Przemo9050I’m almost done with valhalla rn and I can tell you, the side quests are a CHOICE. You can easily go through the main story without doing much of the extra shit
I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy RPG trilogy in past few years this trio have given me more fun than previous games
Honestly those the only games I play 😂 with a little bit of watch dog on the side
Don't say you enjoying ac Valhalla
enjoying a game is totally fun but can you honestly say they are objectively good games? let alone being good assassin's creed games
@@disasterpiece7583why aren't they good games. Witcher 3 is praised to high h*ll, but the gameplay is terrible. AC trilogy at least was fun...except Valhalla lol
I love Valhalla. It's the only game I have over 300hrs in and can still load it up to this day and find something to do.
I am definitely a purist. The Isu stuff is just so convoluted and uninteresting to me. If I had my way with making an Assassin's Creed game, it would just focus on the conflict between the Assassins and Templars. I wouldn't include any Isu stuff in it at all. I wouldn't even include any modern day stuff, but that's a different topic.
Without the isu or the modern day then the conflict between the assassins and Templar wouldn’t exist at all
Do you really prefer all after 13 titles in 16 years the story just have to be about assassins and templars? what a boring games that would be.
If ubisoft hat the balls to call this new series something else, and simply continue giving us great AC and not unfinished messes we all would have been happy
and lets face it the decline in sales was mostly because of unfinished and broken games, not because "people were getting sick of assassins creed."
Spread the games out over 2 years and none of this would have happened
Then Assassins creed would have died out long ago. The whole reason they changed was because fans were complaining about every game being the same. What makes it assassins creed is the story. Is fallout 1 not a fallout game because its not an FPS?
@@goldenburger836 fans were complaining about lack of polish mostly, and fallout 1 is fallout even though it's not fps because it came before the fps POV, also Fallout 4 is not fallout because the story is terrible
you can draw your analogies
@jonathanhunter7670 so fallout 4 is not a fallout game because YOU don't like it. OK you just lost all credibility
@@goldenburger836 ??? most fallout fans would agree, what kind of logic are you throwing? though I am arguing with a burger what did I expect, too much internet for tday
@@jonathanhunter7670 alright u lost me when u said fallout 4 is not fallout
Origins is loved, many people like Odyssey too despite being not much about assassins but its history and world. Valhalla on the other hand…
Valhalla is amazing. Fuck what talking about
@@michealharrison3502Valhalla suck man
I do not understand the Origin love.
@@michealharrison3502it’s just fun to shit on ac Valhalla. Wait for two three more new ac games, the same crowd will circle back to Valhalla like it was a second coming.
The RPG Trilogy of Assassin's Creed Sucks. No, not you Origins, you are perfect bby.
I like odyssey an Valhalla more origin I just couldn’t with the combat it was throwing me 🤦🏽♂️
Valhalla*
@@Grandtemplar305the whole story was better, and the combat is the same and the whole game wasn’t it feeling wise.
@@proonogate4463very bad after odyssey
Origin's was good gameplay wise but story wise I hate the story, everything bayek did was like out of the frying pan into the fire. I'm more meaning the whole story was turning bad into worse. Odyssey was a excellent game but it kinda did leave the creed out until roughly the end of the game or really just until you play the dlc's. I'm still playing Valhalla so atm I have no comment for that game
After hearing criticism of both Valhalla and Odyssey, I was relieved to find them both very enjoyable. I agree they aren't very similar to the earlier AC games, but at this point, those older AC games seem a bit boring. Being frequently on sale for $15 helps too.
Huh, that's some good bang for ur buck 👍
Agreed. While I dislike both Valhalla and Odyssey they did help past the time.
I strongly dislike RPGs in general. I hate having to compare overly complex stats of weapons, look at "percentages of critical hit chances", armour stats, buffs, ... Conversely, I like stealth games. Any of the older AC games that wouldn't force you into open combat, I would try to complete not only without being detected, but without even being spotted.
On top of that, I liked the style of the older combat, where you could actually see swords make contact, your character hit an enemy and them flinching, ... The whole hitbox thing is a major step back in my eye.
When it comes to AC, I also like historical accuracy, and the "historical tourism" factor. I would much rather have a highly detailed historical metropolis to explore than a huge map containing some settlements only connected by non-descript landscape where "anything goes" for the developers. Don't give me some fictitious islands on a disproportionate map of Greece. Give me a 1:1 map of Paris where as many of the recorded buildings that would have been there at the time actually show up on the map. And definitely don't give me minotaurs, cyclopses, ... to fight. AC was always a fairly realistic series with some scifi sprinkeled in, usually making an appearance at the end. It was never a fantasy series.
Finally, respect the lore. The animus contains a representation of the memories of ancestors. You can only relive these memories, you can't influence history. That means one single ending, no dialogue options and no choice of gender or protagonist.
For all these reasons and more, I despise the AC RPG games with a passion.
Fair point but you also don't like rpgs and I feel like if you dislike a game because of its genre you can't really give an unbiased take on the gameplay at least
Imo Odyssey was fantastic actually imo it's easily top 5 best AC games(black flag is my number 1 and Odyssey is my personal number 2 but in an objective sense some of the older ones are betfer)
Valhalla is extremely underrated and Odyssey was fun asf(I'm sorry but I fucking love the idea of having bosses to fight.
AC Games were getting to a point where they felt too similar that's part of my reasoning for loving black flag much. It changed alot. Syndicate was alright and unity just had a rough launch.
But I disagree entirely with your opinion
I am a Purist. I never really cared about Isu or mythology Templars vs Assasins being in historical background is what Assassins Creed really is.
I honestly dont think the franchise would be so repetitive if they continued the same formula. After all there are diffrent maps,diffrent historical eras,diffrent stories,diffrent gameplay systems etc. You are right about RPG making more money tho but I hope Ubisoft use that money for a great classical AC game. I think AC Unity was great in fact almost perfect and I am playing Syndicate now(I skipped it for some reason). If people wouldnt criticize Unity from the start I dont think Ubisoft would have to go to a complete RPG direction.
What u didn’t care bout the isu mythology wow 😂🤦🏽♂️ I actually like it I remember when I was 10 or 11 I was like I hope they make a game where they dive deep to the isu mythology lore and they did an odyssey an Valhalla are my two most favorite after ac rouge an 3 cause Shay an haytham are just to complex
@@Grandtemplar305 They would be intresting for me if this franchise was about mythology(greek,norse etc.) or if it was a science-fiction game but this game was always intresting to me for the fight between Templars and Assassins in the historical background how it affects history. That unrealistic Isu stuff kinda breaks it for me. It isnt a big problem tho because it was more in background until AC Syndicate.
@@KuzeyAkkaya-sb2nkcompletely agree
There's an irony in saying something wouldn't be repetitive if it stuck to the same formula
@@KuzeyAkkaya-sb2nk true I feel u on that
I love how you're one of the few AC creators I know of that actually seems to enjoy the whole series and in every video I just hear your enthusiasm about the series. I was actually wondering which of the 4 categories you mentioned you think you are yourself?
I appreciate that! I love all the AC games (except ______)
As for which category. I honestly would say the purists with a slight mix of ezio loyalists haha
@@TheHiddenOne690 Damn, interesting! Would you count AC Origins as a game that still fits within the Purists sphere? Eventhough it's seen as part of the RPG Trilogy? Just wondering because you have stated numerous times that Origins is your favorite game :))
@timbelmans5057 Origin's RPG gameplay (leveling) is the main reason why purists oppose despite the decent story.
People who shit on Origins have absolutely zero taste or credibility
I'm not big on origins it's alright. I like the older games which focus on parkour more.
@@Seekerofgodandlifewe are talking about the rgp games
grpahics can't make shit game to a good game, accept it boy
It is something called " an opinion" but it looks like you never heard of it.
@@chamilajayarathna5209 what?
Origins and Odyssey are good. No comment on vallhalla
You probably never played Valhalla odyssey is bad origins is good but if you consider it as an rpg game it lacks animations. Valhalla is really good 💯
I for one didn't mind Origins becoming rpg, as that one is a good game. My problem starts on Oddysey when Ubisoft mess with the lore that it becomes confusing. For example, the animus is machine that let you relive the dna memory of someone using the dna sample. How can you add choices and multiple ending when the animus isn supposed to let you only relive the memory? It's not like animus is a time machine.
Go through the Isu temple messages in Origins. It foreshadowed Odyssey having branching paths.
It could be a side effect of using DNA from the person being channeled, and in Odyssey Layla has to use the book by Herodotus to fill in gaps (using DNA from the spear and not the body since that’s still alive and kicking) so that could give leeway for how canonical outcomes are in-universe. The less historical record to corroborate events the easier to handwave alternatives or even identify which are alternatives and which was the historically canonical path.
@@jbcatz5why is there choices for Valhalla then. That doesn’t even make sense.
@@AgentN-s5u The explanation given for the choice of gender in Valhalla is that Eivor being a Sage of Odin gives the Animus enough leeway to facilitate the choice. Maybe this plays into branching storylines. The conclusion has Layla join someone who is heavily implied to be Desmond in sorting out branching timelines to find the path with the optimal outcome, a visual way to show alternate paths and a tree evokes Yggdrasil.
@@jbcatz5 that is insanely contrived but it’s the only way it makes any sense
Similar to action-over-horror Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6. You do it once, it's novel. Twice, it's sour. Thrice, it's gone.
Also, it's quite surprising by how similar history the 2 series are. The series starts out wowing people, then Capcom & Ubisoft milked them with sequels and spinoffs which lead to the big change (RE4 and Origins) before fans started to resent the change too.
And then eventually, they went back to their core concepts (RE7, Mirage / Horror, fucking Assassins)
@@minedude33 they didn't with mirage though
@@josiahtheobald689 They definitely did bring back the core concept of you being an Assassin
@@minedude33 well i disagree, but i s'pose it doesn't really matter since there not makin' Assassin's Creed for folks like me anymore since the reboot, but if you enjoyed it that's good
@@josiahtheobald689 We're literally the same folks, I enjoy the old games (ACIII is my favorite) and I haven't bought Odyssey or Valhalla, but they finally brought actual Assassins back to the foreground much like RE brought horror back
Honestly - I like them. I can appreciate why people say “it’s not assassin’s creed” but if the games hadn’t of made the change, people would be moaning that AC was stale and boring. There’s room enough for both styles of Assassin’s Creed games, OG and RPG, and that’s ok! 😊
Honestly I see them as a story that happens before the hidden ones and like who they work with they help them out an shit cause honestly Valhalla an odyssey probably got one of the best story an I don’t care what the ezio fans have to say sure he’s a pretty boy who have charm and can fight an who turn from this immature brat to this wise mature smart man which what I really like bout him but my favorite ac character ain’t ezio its haytham
said it beautifully tbh. there’s room for both fans.
They only said it's stale and boring because the series went no where after AC3. It was all nothing burgers which Ubisoft tried to milk. You know what I'm talking about, the historical world tour simulator that Ubisoft really wants to sell. The actually meat on the bones; the modern day, was gone. It still feels empty, where Valhalla made a small dent. It also didn't help that they released it annually. That's game fatigue for a whole lot of nothing throughout the years.
when you want to put a spin on a game, you don't rebuild it from scratch. you keep the foundation (stealth and quick kills), and build from there
man where is that origins sequel, been waiting for ages and itll probably never come :(
Can you do a video about all dlcs in Assassin's Creed? Like a ranking or you can present all the dlcs that were released for every game
Casual player here. I’ve loved Assassin’s Creed, have memorabilia and love the lore. The being said, I do have criticisms to give each title. I can honestly say I’ve replayed all entries except for Unity and Syndicate.
Now regarding the RPG trilogy, I loved Origins, initially I hated Odyssey but forced myself through it grew to love it, not as an Assassin’s Creed game, but something of its own entirely, I finished Mirage which was a nice nod to the originals. I throughly enjoyed it just wished it were longer. I’m replaying Valhalla currently while waiting for June 10th for news on Red. I’m eager to see how everything affecting Ubisoft impacts the final product, but also keeping my spirited high enough to enjoy it.
They should of just created “ warriors of history “ having rpgs in this new game franchise and that would be really cool and if they wanted it to set in to the ac universe I guess they could but if they did that and then continue perfecting assassin creed from unity everyone would be happy. And bringing in rpg gamers to Ubisoft.
if they didn’t ruin the launch of ac unity assassin creed would be very different.
I really like Origins. Bayek is a strong contender for best protagonist in the series. I'd put him on the same pedestal as Ezio. The game is gorgeous and there's tons of little details to appreciate with Bayek's interaction with the environment. I also adore parts of Odyssey. I got 200 hours of playtime before even hitting the credits. The sense of exploration, the bite-sized story telling for regional side quests, and the RPG mechanics were all a blast to play around with. I played Valhalla... It was a game.
The thing about the RPG games isn't that they have nothing to offer. It's that they remove so much of what matters to me when it comes to Assassin's Creed. Parkour became an afterthought. Mechanics were disincentivized for loot grinding, abilities on cooldown and stat sheets. This is already noticeable in Syndicate, which I would argue is the better starting point for the RPG games than Origins is. I also didn't care for Syndicate for much the same reasons as the games that came after; it just felt like a Ubisoft game, rather than Assassin's Creed. Like a Watch_Dogs situation; games that take place in the same universe, without sharing a core design philosophy.
Ezio and edaward(my personal favorite) were my favorite protagonist. I never finished organs because I just wasn't that invested in it but Odyssey was a fucking blast(really good game just not a good ac game)
And valhalla imo is underrated asf
if they separated the games everyone would be happy
I have not played Odyssey or Mirage yet, but have played Origins and Valhalla, and all mainline games before Origins.
I would say that the RPG series does not give me the same Assassins Creed gameplay that the games before Origins did, and I do prefer them over the RPGs. That said; it does not make the RPGs bad in my opinion.
But I don’t like the enormous amount of weapons and stuff in the RPGs and the highly bloated skill-trees.
I miss the tools and slow upgrades of weapons through the story like before, or unlocking a special set through exploring and side quests.
I don’t like the mythological parts with God-like monsters and “special powers”, either through the weapons or skills.
The Isu technology was nice, but now it’s become quite ridiculous.
I prefer a more down to earth/believable approach when it comes to the Isu relics and storyline.
But I don’t hate the RPGs. They are good games overall, if not a bit bloated with silly filler content and the like.
It would be preferable to go back to the style of Unity and Syndicate :)
Although I study Ancient Greece, for some reason I cannot explain, my favourite game is AC Valhalla. It is my favourite game of all time alongside Ghost of Tsushima and RDR2. Odyssey is my 3rd favourite AC game after Mirage, and Origins is tied for 4th with Black Flag
I love odyssey the most but I have to say Valhalla was the one I spend the most hours in probably cause when I was younger I always wish I was born in the Viking era but with odyssey the world felt so alive and fun to be in the story was just amazing one thing I can say bout Valhalla story was that it felt like I was watching a Viking show which isn’t bad in my opinion I beat it last year an now I’m going for another walkthrough
Well the fans are never gonna be happy. People were complaining that AC was getting "stale" and needed something new. Then ubisoft makes changes and then everyone's pissed off. Its a lose lose situation for ubisoft really. Not that im defending ubisoft, but wow assassin's creed fans can be insufferable sometimes. I love the old games but I also love the new games. They all have something to offer.
This mostly sums up a lot of the friction with this community. A lot of people ignore how lukewarm the reception of this franchise was before Origins.
nah, people were complaining about unfinished, rushed and often badly written games.
Nobody was complaining about AC getting stale. Ubisoft changed the formula after the dumpster fire that was Unity.
I am an rpg enthusiast. I play assassin's creed 2 back in the day but I probably would neverhave come back if I hadn't seen the e3 teaser of Odyssey and how Bioware-like it was. That being said I don't think people on either side are fans of microtransactions.
I am a fan of ongoing support for games, and a reason to invest more in games i enjoy most; microtransactions allow for that. But it is a fine line of whether those transactions impact gameplay or not. They are yet to impact ubisoft games substantially emough to cause concern imo, but that is coming from someone with 10's of thousands of hours in multiple mmos who has seen all the manipulative tricks in the business regarding monetization. I don't find ubisoft too bad in my experience.
I didn’t have an issue with any of the AC RPG games. Personally, I enjoyed all three of them.
'True gamers don't hate the game'
-random dude that have an exam tomorrow
@@dancelphyt9906 indeed! I totally agree.
- random dude who has a research essay dude tmrw at noon, but is most likely going to write it tmrw at 5 AM.
I guess my main problem with the RPG games is it has divided the audience into different factions and therefore an AC game will never hit the heights of the earlier games because a faction of the audience will always be alienated and less likely to buy or enjoy the game. Odyssey alienates fans who want the assassin fantasy and Mirage alienates the RPG fans. They seem to be taking their time with Hexe and Red, so hopefully they're taking in all the fans thoughts, praise, criticism on the series and 1 or both of the next games leave most fans satisfied.
Not me I enjoy them all so that’s. Ore games for me when I first play the rpg trilogy I was shock on how amazing they were
Yes the RPG games have divided the fan base but that's because the RPG games are objectively worse games. Take Origins for example (the best of the RPG era and a game I really enjoy) - Origins is fun but it's still a terrible AC. Bayek is a great character and how Ancient Egypt is portrayed is great also, but the rest of the game is dumbed down. In Origins enemy difficulty is reduced to simply to number, whereas in old ACs such as 2 the more difficult enemies and bosses just fought better (dodged and countered more). The combat is simple hack 'n slash and fast dodges, not like the slower more weighted combat of older ACS, for example the counter window differed depending on the type of weapon the enemy had. You could disarm, be disarmed, grab and throw...really the fighting was more interesting in older ACs.
AC origins was an AC game, Odyssey was a slug to get through and Valhalla was a Viking game, not that a Viking is is bad but it wasn't an AC game to me
Odyssey wasn't even in a timeperiod when assassins existed lol. that always annoys me, why would you make a game called "origins" that sets an origin story of the assassins and then immediatly make another game that is set before origins
@@crafter7jake874 yeah, doesn't make sense.
Bosses are sponges as well.
Takes ages to kill bosses
So true! I actually really enjoyed Valhalla (it was also my first ever AC game so I'm a bit biased) but it's not even close to being an AC game.
As for your point about Origins, I often find it a shame that it gets grouped with Oddysey and Valhalla because it is just so much greater of an AC game.
@@connorohalloran1636And bosses had unlimited block in previous games...lol
@@crafter7jake874odyssey is how the templars started
The only RPG I have an issue with is Valhalla because I think it’s just too much game and the live service didn’t work well with this series. Origins is a solid title that I’ve played multiple times and still enjoy. I do wish that they would’ve delved more into the actual creed because that was a huge focal point of lore in the first 6 games in the series. Odyssey is a fantastic game. I think it was genuinely fun to play. I think if Ubisoft would’ve stuck with the initial name of “Odyssey: an Assassins Creed Story” oddly enough people would’ve probably had less of an issue with it not having much lore outside of the Isu stuff.
As a bigger fan of the older games in the franchise, I can see why old school fans dislike the RPGs. Removing the advanced parkour and the focus of the creed completely changed the identity of the series. Arguably Ubisoft chose to go in a direction that appealed to a larger fan base and better supported microtransactions. For the fans who spent their money on the first 9 games in the series, I can see why they would be upset by the series completely changing direction.
Stop hating Valhalla is great just not asassassin creed as others. Odyssey is the worst in my opinion, i respect origins although i wish it had better animations other than that game is good
@@georgekantartzis How about you stop hating Odyssey first
I have played AC since the beginning and I have to say that Origins and Odyssey were amazing, but Valhalla took the piss
I agree origins is in my top 5
Same. I loved both of those… but I struggled with Valhalla … A LOT 😂 I dont think i even finished it, now when I think about it
@@agirlinabasementofyourdaddyit’s really good when you do you just have to play the story don’t go hunting for mysteries go for the gear and play story do the mysteries as you cross them
the only bad thing about Origins was when I was FORCED to play as Aya. I just wanted to go back to Bayek and do open world stuff, but had to just finish the aya sections already.
Aya either should’ve been the only playable character or not in it at all. The fact that she kinda hijacks the ending of the game makes me think that she was supposed to be main character but all of her sections except for the last one feel like an afterthought
@@r520jr8or maybe being able to switch between characters like AC syndicate or like GTA5
Something I just realized is that we havent had a double hidden bladed Assassin since Black Flag
Ubisoft advertising teams, and the draw of nostalgia have kept me coming back for too long, even after disappointing releases. Shame on me. Red will not be a purchase for me.
Games are becoming too large, bloated, and unfulfilling. We need a tighter game world such as unity was but with modern scale.
Tbh i don't mind the switch of genres.
I played action rpg games for some time so it's not a big loss to me
For me the best thing in this series is being able to explore different historical settings. I don't care about if game focuses on stealth or not.
Just gimme that sweet sweet virtual historical tourism
Edit: oh yeah i am more of a casual player
I'm somewhere between a loyalist and a purist. allow me to expound on my attitudes in detail:
Altair is still my favorite protagonist and the crusades is still my favorite setting, and there are elements i like from AC1 that were given the boot with AC2, for example, while crowdblending in AC2 is more utilitarian, it changed the whole vibe. in AC1, Altair has to find a crowd of scholars dressed like him in order to crowdblend, and he pretends to be one of them. i loved this because it was ALTAIR'S experience, the reason the assassins dressed the way they did was to blend in with those specific people, Altair has to use his own cunning and has to specifically look for them or plan his strategy around where they are, etc. In AC2, Ezio picks a random group of people and then the people and ezio's cape all magically change colors. it isn't Ezio that's blending in, it's the ANIMUS hacking the memory and altering those things, like how the Tardis in Doctor Who automatically translates spoken language. it made for a smoother game mechanic but sacrificed both story and immersion. in AC1 it felt like i was using Altair's cunning to take advantage of my surroundings, starting to think like my ancestor and use HIS tactics, which perfectly aligned with how desmond was slowly learning from his ancestor's memories and also experiencing the animus' bleed-over effect, blurring the line between the memories of ancestor and descendant. as Ezio, it just felt like the Animus was helping me "cheat", it didn't feel immersive or like it was desmond or even ezio who's cunning or agency mattered, it had no greater implications, and just felt like the animus was modifying the memory for my convenience, which then begs the question of whether the memories seen in the animus can even be trusted to be correct/reliable. the animus just sort of felt like an overglorified Xbox, now.
AC3 was a great game and i enjoyed connor's story, but being forced to play as the uninteresting Haytham for far too long left me feeling eternally trapped in a bad tutorial mission, and i could see the templar twist from almost right out of the gate because of how obviously templar Haytham's attitude and mannerisms were, leaving me just saying "I GET IT, he's a templar, ooooh big reveal, get on with it, when do i get to actually play THE GAME I PAYED FOR?!", and the ending was HOT GARBAGE that left such a bad taste in my mouth that i almost skipped AC4 entirely.
AC4 was the best pirate game EVER, and a DECENT Assassin's Creed game, my only criticism is that the attempt to save the modern story and continue without desmond was kinda flat. it was a decent way of retconning their screw up with the AC3 ending, but it wasn't GOOD. it essentially just said "Desmond's corpse was stolen by templars and has been cut into little dna samples" and then basically just turned Abstergo into Ubisoft and made you one of Ubi's game testers, which felt a TAD bit narcissistic, and more than a little lazy, but at least sort of worked.
everything between AC4 and Origins i basically have the same opinion on, decent games, just really couldn't get into the stories. i felt Rogue was weakest, thought syndicate and unity were better.
everything from Origins forward was just a waste of my time, the stories didn't interest me, ubisoft starting jumping the shark, they abandoned the plots they had set up in previous installments, the RPG elements completely turned me off, the parkour engines were abysmal, basically everything that i liked about the series had been thrown out unceremoniously in favor of ill-fitting and inferior, but highly marketable trash with less and less originality with each title. Valhalla was by for the worst offender on that last point, just lifting whatever they liked from god of war 5 and the Vikings tv show right down to Eivor having Ragnar's raven tattoo and Odin dragging you around by your axe like thor uses mjolnir in GOW. AND ODIN, my god man, what happened to this series? we are first made aware of the precursor peoples and Juno in 2, and we go through the whole ezio trilogy and 3 speaking to her in the animus before we finally meet them in person at the ending of 3, and desmond just straight up DIES. now we've changed pantheons without ever actually finishing the things set up with the greeks, completely forgot about the judeo-christian angles they laid the seeds for early on, and now we're getting into slugging matches with the Allfather??? remember when they removed the crossbow from ac1 before release because of historical inaccuracy? i miss THAT Ubisoft. if they wanted to make a god of war style rpg based on the vikings tv series they should have just done that. for someone with norse heritage and an obsession with viking stuff, Ubisoft managed to do the impossible and made a viking story i absolutely could not give a rat's ass about in a viking game i'm proud NOT to own. and why are we making multiple choice decisions when reliving past events already set in stone?
i've always held the general attitudes that:
1. Ubisoft shouldn't have just thrown out the seeds they laid with AC1 and the Ezio trilogy. i was deeply invested in the whole Adam and Eve angle which ubisoft were too cowardly to stay the course on, likely for fear of alienating christians, losing the demographic and baiting a drama scandal.
2. they should have actually gone somewhere with the "Greek" precursors we started with before jumping around global religions like a fresh christian convert shopping around for the right church and denomination.
3. killing desmond at the end of AC3 was a terrible choice, and if they were going to do that, it should have been the end of the franchise right there
4. ubisoft should have taken advantage of the popularity of edward kenway and black flag, and given us an Edward Kenway trilogy just like they did with ezio before him before moving on to another assassin again.
Thank you for attending my TEDtalk.
So in short, you are trap in nostalgia and don't want to move on 😄
@@inigostudio170 it's not so much nostalgia as it is preference. i'm not a huge fan of rpg style games to begin with, with rare exceptions, so the newer one's were never going to appeal to me, just on that level.
i suppose you could call it nostalgia regarding the old story hooks that never saw fruition, but again it's more a stylistic preference, the early approach to tying in conspiracies and the potential of those story hooks. the adam and eve hook could have led to a sort of alternate origin story game in a sumerian/babylonian setting, which could have been cool since a lot of the abrahamic foundational myths are very similar, and the whole vibe of that story hook felt like it was implying the story of how Enki/Ea created man as a servitor, but made us too smart by adding the god's dna, and angered the other gods, the story of how enlil flooded the world to try and silence us because were were annoying and bothersome. the whole idea that the precursor people created us and regretted it.
i personally don't see why we have to choose between the old style and the new rpg style, ubisoft could just do both. the zelda games are a good comparison, some people prefer the more realistic and detailed games like ocarina, twilight princess etc, some prefer the more cute cel shaded style aping 2d like wind waker, and nintendo just released both styles of game intermittently, keeping both sides of the fanbase sated without alienating anyone. i don't see why Ubi hasn't done something similar.
@@gourdguru you literally typed a wall-text to a troll NPC.
@@novinceinhosic3531 and yet the troll text had more substance than your own response does, leaving me to assume you're correct, since mindless NPCs can sense their own.
it's like the evil twin paradox, i don't know which one to shoot. say something only the _real_ NPC would know, lol.
or you could, i dunno, engage the topic? what's your favorite AC game/setting? missed story hook?
or do you not even play them and just sort of wandered in looking to make an anti-NPC PSA, and decided to thread necromancy a dead discussion to do it?
at least the NPC had a valid, if dickish, critique to offer. what are you contributing to the discussion to drag me back here 4 months after even the NPC stopped caring? NOTHING.
what does that say about your personality? that an NPC troll 4 months ago had more to say and was more relevant and engaging than you are now?
oh no, i "took the NPC's bait" or whatever. so? at least i took _FRESH_ bait, you're over here _scavenging a rotting carcass._
@@gourdguru dude, you are in the YT comment section, not a text-based RPG. I just told you in case you were unaware, but now I see you actually take pleasure into your masochism. Keep up the thankless great work!
I honestly feel if Ubisoft named the game Valhalla not “assassin creed Valhalla” it won’t get this much criticism from the fans. I remember being the only one that liked unity during its release among my friends and school now every one likes it like be for real and open your mind to change
Me personally, the reason I don’t care for RPG elements jn games like AC is because, im one to follow the story for how it is suppose to be told. I don’t want to choose the outcome, I want to immerse myself into the game in the way it was meant to be told, as there’s always been one protagonist, and there’s always been one outcome, and I want to continue to experience the outcome and connectivity between the games as they are suppose to be intended.
Also, the overwhelming choices in customization is a bit ridiculous. I’ve played more hours in Diablo 2 that I can remember at this point, then trying Diablo 4 where EVERYTHING is customizable, down to the make up and even choosing specific stats to boost the builds…it made the grind I loved to find the gear I needed feel absolutely pointless. I don’t care about “this gives 1.35% for X seconds” none sense, just give me short, sweet, and to the point choices so I spend more time actually playing over needing to “look cool” or do math to min/max by build.
Also, level capping is dumb if you have open world, because it makes the very aspect for there to be open world go from fun to feeling/being mandatory: exploration. I don’t want to be told that I have to explore and grind to level up my player/gear to advance, because then it turns into curiously and excitement, into being a chore and ruining the fun entirely. If you have a level capped open world, all you’re doing is essentially making a linear game, which goes against the concept of open world, so either fully commit to the open world concept and remove any level caps, or just make a non open world game with a linear path/story to follow, you can’t have both, and you won’t please any fan base with making a counter productive game with a leveling system that caps out when you explore the open world…which is what you’re suppose to do in an open world.
Lastly, the greed from Ubisoft has become blatantly apparent, and that is a very biasing factor. I understand your statement in “they have made some good games recently”, however, that doesn’t discredit the point that those “good games” are so very few and far between. Mirage was an enjoyable game, it was my first introduction to AC as far as playing a game in the series, and now going back and playing the games in order starting with AC1 I understand the criticism as it was a DLC made into a full game, but overall, it actually feels more AC than any of the RPG games, both in combat and immersion within the story. AC1 Had basic combat, Mirage does too, and that’s one of the biggest criticisms and AC1 is a very highly regarded game by many.
For Ubisoft to outright say they want to place the burden onto players will never make the idea of them making good games recently justified to glance over saying the “quiet part” out loud. Also, their involvement with forced DEI agenda/narrative pushing companies like Sweet Baby Inc sours expectations with any future games, as they would rather bend the knee to the vocal minority who demand DEI/identity politics to be the forefront of the games, and once everything is said and done, all those demanding change never were going to truly support it, so it leaves actual fans with bad games all for the sake of chasing pennies while losing dollars.
If you were interested in such a topic, I which I talk a LOT about AC, make sure to check the video out here:
th-cam.com/video/xw-biPeUkz0/w-d-xo.html
I’m not just trying to plug my video because of views or anything like that, but because of all the DEI none sense that’s been surfacing, it is a conversation that studios, and the consulting companies they work for, are now being forced to address, many of which are desperately trying to run damage control about, and it leaves people questioning if what they were doing was the “right thing”, why would they need to run damage control for it?
I don’t think rpg elements are the elements (actually, I love Origins)
The problems is the amount of magic/fantasy/mythology presence in the story as well as in the gameplay and lack of the classic assassins vs templars, add to that a worse parkour system and less effective stealth that encourages you to do open combat instead of seeing it as a last resort
And I am a purist
I consider myself a "sort of" purist. I don't hate the RPG Trilogy, Origins is in my top 3 of favorite AC games, but I will always like the old style more than the RPG style. Every time I play the Ezio Trilogy or Black Flag I get so nostalgic for the gameplay.
I have good faith in Ubisoft they’ll make ac red a good game!
Number 5. The bendu. They like the lore all the games. And side content such as books, comics, side dlcs and small games.
tbh i understand where ppl are coming from when it comes to the classic style of ac games, but having a big enough map where we have multiple cities was just a game changer. i love espionage (which let’s face it assassination is somewhat associated with spy stuff) it just elevated the gameplay for me at least. especially with ac Valhalla, although the cities were not exactly what i would have wanted. all that game needed was bigger cities. the distrust areas with the added pressure of the zealots roaming around was just too goddam fun for me. absolutely fire. plus the order members were hidden scattered around and you had to geo-locate them yourself (at least i did) just added to all of it. as it’s called irl “find, fix, finish”. i literally bought mirage played most of it and got bored of it and switched back to ac Valhalla because i did all the work my self regarding finding the order members, although the notoriety system from mirage was the best part of the game we need that moving forward. anyways if i knew where the person was but didn’t know their identity i would go to said place on the map and try to find them myself without all of the hints, it was incredibly fun for me. so whatever Ubisoft comes up with i hope they keep these four qualities: hidden order members, elite warriors that track you, multiple big cities (at least two), and the notoriety system (or the wanted levels for you gta fans lmaooo). i think they can’t go wrong with these features in ac games moving forward.
I have played every AC game and although my favourite games are brotherhoood unity and black flag mirage is a really big breath of fresh air from the likes of odessey and valhalla having great stealth good parkour brilliant world decent story good side quests and tolerable combat. although combat is critisized it's actually much more realistic than the RPG counterparts as well as having satisfying finishers with diverse enemies. all in all it's a great AC game
@@TheconspiracyTheorist69 the stealth is not impressive at all. The combat is actually worse, it's neither the "RPG", only looks like it, it's neither AC1-2 basic combat, it's just in between and it terrible, specially with the teleport-kill ability on steroids brought from Odessay. The parkour is meh, barely any improvement since AC 1, and we are 16 years difference, still less skill expression than it used to be in AC 1 and Revelations, let's not even talk about the AI or poor scripting.
@@novinceinhosic3531 first of all, it's combat is not bad, it has a light and heavy attack as well as a parry and dodge. So I don't understand what you're saying. Furthermore, it has brilliant stealth, with a nice detection system, multiple tools and the teleport ability is completely optional. The parkour mechanics are not bad because it's the same thing. Jump to go up, much less janky than AC black flag. Also the environment is great for parkour with unique rolls and swings. You don't need to use much combat if you're good at stealth and teleportation is negligible. It has basic combat and enemies die within 3-4 hits (black flag took 4 hits) the parry is the same thing as counter and you can actually dodge attacks. It's not the best AC but is a nice refresher from the RPG trilogy
@@TheconspiracyTheorist69 I get the feeling that either people haven't played the original game in 15 years and have forgotten how it was, or that people were playing it without actually spotting or appreciating the details, if one ends up saying that Mirage is in any way comparable to AC I.
@@novinceinhosic3531 Icl I have to replay ezio trilogy, it's been a while
I really disliked about the newer games that everything is too much. I have a family and wanna have fun with games, not just search for collectibles for 100 hours.
Origins had a lot of great storys to tell. But Valhalla . . .
As a fan of Role Playing Games, I personally like them. However, Odyssey and Valhalla made you feel as if your choices not only don't really matter but, it messes up on how it basically doesn't let you continue the story that you started with the characters that you loved Playing as. Now, I also love how the series did do something different with historical events while teaching us on what happened as well. But, when I play an R.P.G., I want to be able to continue my save file over to the next game and feel like I am still telling my story. The fact that Kassandra and female Eivor have became designated as the "Canon" characters, it makes me feel as if I don't have a choice not only on who I play as but I basically have to submit myself to spoilers to understand what events are "Canon" in the games and the franchise as a whole. But, I do still respect the fact that they did try so,thing different on the Mythologies of Ancient Egypt, Greece and Scandinavia plus the United Kingdom.
I enjoyed the rpg trilogy as much as the older games,I love all the ac games,each game it's unique and good in its own style
I'm a proud purist, but I'd love for ubi to release both rpg type ac games and the more traditional type (but modernized to be in line with more recent open world games).
I’ve been playing the series since the original. I had a lot of fun with the RPG trilogy and enjoyed my time with them. However I did get a bit burnt out due to the length. Odyssey took me over a year to finish and it was the only game I was playing (this was back when I had a 3 hour daily commute). I finished the main campaign of Valhalla a year ago and haven’t been able to pick it up again, I still have the dlc and extras to do. They are fun, but a bit too bloated.
I'm none of these four. I'm a veteran AC player who likes RPG games, as well as the OGs. Simple as that.
Love the RPG tribology. Valhalla get's a little monotonous at times but I still really liked it. Odyssey just flows and the fight animations are the best. Origins has my favorite protagonist by far out of all AC games. Granted I haven't played AC3, Rogue & AC4 yet.
I would classify the RPG ACs as lazy. Enemy difficulty being reduced to simply a number, whereas in old ACs such as 2 the more difficult enemies and bosses just fought better (dodged and countered more). The combat is simple hack 'n slash and fast dodges, not like the slower more weighted combat of older ACS, for example the counter window differed depending on the type of weapon the enemy had. You could disarm, be disarmed, grab and throw...really the fighting was more interesting in the older ACs. They had some historical accuracy to them as well, where as now you get God weapons with glowing lights and stupid stuff. They're just Whicher clones really and play just like that or God of War. AC is not unique or that interesting anymore. The only positive addition from the RPG era is ranged weapons. Bayek I think is a good character also. Overall I like Origins but I can admit the RPG era is objectively worse.
And no I'm not a Black Flag fanboy. While a lot of fun it is a terrible AC game in it's own way - the combat is simply just press 2 buttons and you can wipe out an entire platoon. Plus the game gives you dual swords and pistols from within the first few hours of gameplay - you are completely overpowered from the beginning. Unity was a return to form but it's brilliance was overshadowed by it's bugs. The franchise was not growing stale as Unity's popularity proves, and the shift to RPG was not inevitable.
If the franchise just continued on from Unity (smoothing out it's mechanics with minimal bugs), keeping to a more grounded world with emphasis on assassins and complex combat, but created a world which allowed the vast exploration of Black Flag, the franchise would still be loved. This base formula would keep the franchise going, and it would be the locations and stories which would keep each game fresh.
Tbh their all pretty solid games it’s just Ubisoft put the word assassins creed in the title I think their all good in their own way
The RPG era of Assassin’s Creed seems even better to me than the first three numbered games. Not to mention Unity and Syndicate. The problem is that people are afraid of evolving, and the same happens with the Final Fantasy saga. You can’t stick to the same style for decades; you have to embrace evolution and new ideas. Origins and Odyssey are great video games; Valhalla isn’t to my taste. Nostalgia heavily influences people’s thinking. Unity is known for its good parkour, but nobody remembers its terrible narrative and its protagonist lacking personality. Even its villain isn’t memorable.
I like the quality of your videos. Nice to hear your opinion on this. I'd say Origins isn't really an RPG game, but it has RPG-like combat, which is the most notable difference from it and Syndicate, except the simpler parkour (of course many new features are added in Origins and some are taken away to fit the context). When Origins released, I loved it, but when I realized, before release, that Odyssey had player choices for the story, I was put off because I wondered 'how can a game like Assassin's Creed be an RPG game', and then I realised that the franchise I love is changing it's genre and direction. Eventually, I began to like Odyssey (Valhalla had potential but it has way too much tedious, horribly written filler content which are made mandatory to finish the main story). Also, the "assassin's creed" is in every Assassin's Creed game - showing the unique code and mentality of each killer, each protagonist, and their purpose in the overall narrative. That's an assassin's creed. Assassins can exist without Brotherhoods. Odyssey focuses on the wider world of Assassin's Creed, we can say.
Yes you said it better then I could
@@Grandtemplar305 let's hope AC Red is not another quadruple-A game - I think we're not ready for something like that again (especially after 'Skull & Bones' became one of the games of all time). Let's just try to make good triple-A games first, aye Ubisoft?
@@Stealthful_ the ninja gameplay looks cool, but the samurai is just soulslike unpolished combat. I think the game basically will mix aspects of poor and unpolished Metal Gear Solid with poor and unpolished Elden Ring and make another unoriginal abomination staffed with micros.
I am part of The RPG Enthusiasts. I played the first two AC games back on the 360 and didn’t enjoy them. When I played Origins I fell in love with that game and put over 100 hours into it. The RPG AC games are my favorite. I’m looking forward to AC Shadows.
Gameplay wise, the shift to RPG made sense and was not that hated with Origins, as Origins and its DLCs perfectly balanced the new setting and gameplay with the experience of being an assassin.
The simplest explanation is the hidden blade itself. After all the stealth you do inside a fort to reach a target or a soldier, and then your hidden blade rewards your sneaky tactics with a confirmed hidden blade kill. This was offset with the Phylakitai being immune to hidden blade one shot kills, but dealing a heavy damage for you being sneaky, and still had to have a boss fight to win.
Odyssey removed this for even the minion soldiers, they all became damage sponges and the game became button mashing after the initial few bursts of skill attacks.
Origins Pharaohs DLC is all about weird locations and boss fights, and it felt in-lore. You literally entered the afterlife to confront them, you knew this is not the real world anymore, this is some fantastical side. Hidden Ones DLC felt more grounded and a great expansion of the main story.
It would've been nice if we got a dual protagonist game after Origins where you played as both Aya and Bayek in the respective regions of Ancient Rome and North Africa-Sinai Peninsula, and they form the next 2 Tenets of the creed, after them realising the first one, stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent.
The RPG element is a welcome, it's great, the combat felt more reactive and engaging than before, unlike especially in Ezio games where it was just counter kills and chain kills. Ezio Games combat made you feel like you were OP, but now you have to be more dynamic with your fights.
But the core tenets of what Assassin's Creed means is what has been missing.
Τhe common element among Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla is Layla Hassan, the Modern Day Assassin... So, we should call it the Layla Trilogy.
She's so uninteresting though. The modern day tie-ins feel like an afterthought in all these games.
I'm one of those who loved all three, I really enjoyed the large open world and the stories. I went back to playing the old ACs but they felt really old now, same feeling I had playing Mirage as well
Odyssey gives great freedom of gameplay that older titles dont give. Actually you can choose to play stealthy like in older games if you go with an assassin build(with good engravings of course). Been fan of older titles too. Story-wise they are better but osyssey has great gameplay value.
First few hours until.you come up with a good build and nice engravings can be bit frustrating and overwhelming.but once you get going it is fun as as hell
I dont have a problem with the rpg style at all. Origins is one of my favorites in the series. With odyssey and valhalla, there are other aspects that ruin the games for me. In oddysey, not being able to one hit stealth kill on certain guards no matter what is really annoying. With valhalla, the detection system is an abomination and literally never works properly. However, I still think all of them are overall good games
You have a shit build that's why. The most RPG out of the 3 is Odyssey. The game is too OP you can one hit kill anyone on any style.
I'm a casual player. I liked both RPG and older games. I quite like the complex storyline with new RPG games. I think they should release both RPG games and an Old style games. I think ubisoft did a good tactical move switching to RPG. I think codename red and hexe will be a huge opportunity to ubisoft and the AC universe. Bringing back the Creed and brotherhood back to games will be turning point. They covered Creed's past and now time for future 😇
I was wondering why I never saw an AC video posted by Fizhy in a while. Thanks for clarifying that.
I am a "fan" of the series ever since it was called Prince of Persia, and it was 2D... and pretty much monochrome, and i was a little boy younger than my now son, just as a context. My 2 cents is that every new installment added it's own weight to the legacy; i think it matters how old you were when you played the games, how long the games were out since you got to play them, what your personal preferences are with regards to places you like to see/visit. and so on. I for one am grateful that this series endured in one form or another for so long, and despite my personal bias at one point or another, i did and will play every assassin's creed game that comes out for as long as they can keep pushing them. It is very rare for a franchise to last this long and bring us on amazing journeys. Maybe Valhalla or AC3 or Unity is not your cup of tea at this moment, but who knows ... maybe in a year or two you will be in a different spot in your life and pour hundreds of hours in one of them.
Bro got a very very loyal audience
I have seen youtubers get 2 million views with 40 million subscribers
Bro consistently gets 30 to 25k views
I loved origins and odyssey. I’ve played this series since it started. Still haven’t gotten around to Valhalla or mirage
I feel if Ubisoft never changed the formula, but instead delayed the time between games to resllt polish them even more, that would've stopped fans from saying it went stale.
During that period when they were releasing a new game every year, the franchise began to feel like FIFA. But none of the actual games were bad. Buggy sure....bad...no.
Having a 1 year gap between games would allow them to polish the game up more and make it even better and plus it gives fans a break so they don't constantly have a new game each year and actually have an extra year to really appreciate it.
Tbh Ubisoft could still go back to the original formula and implement this method
I just started replaying origins and I'm hooked. I honestly don't know why I didn't like it when I played it years ago.
I played for two hours and then uninstalled it and forgot about it.
Maybe because I was expecting it to be more similar to Unity or Syndicate and not an RPG game.
But I hoped into it now with the right expectations, and it's an awesome game, reminds me a lot of The Witcher 3
Fans were getting tired of the same old format every game so they tried something new.. fans still cried. You couldnt make the shizz up. Ubi cant win no matter what they do.
I'm a purist that only now many years after Origins is starting to play the rpg games. Not a fan but since they're free on PlayStation plus, I'm playing them. I really wish they'd go back to their roots and stop making everything so complicated
My biggest issue with Odyssey and Valhalla is that it kinda just feels like they're using the AC IP to sell these games that barely have anything to do with the franchise. If they wanted to make these games and set them in a different universe then I wouldn't have an issue.
I played almost all of the games (i think Black Flag, Unity and Mirage are missing up until now) and i enjoy the RPG trilogy most, because i’m an rpg fan and also i’m in love with greek and norse mythology, egyiptian and roman history as well. However a mercenary who is at the end of the game is the most famous warrior in the greek world, or a viking who participates in defeating basically every kingdom in England and becames the most feared viking kinda rejects the whole idea of an assassin, who should be hidden in the shadows. Not to mention Kassandra and Eivor (especially Kassandra) became kinda OP. For these reasons i understand some of the criticisms. But Odyessy will forever be my favorite game.
I’m so excited for AC Red. Japanese history fascinates me and I’d love to see what Ubisoft does with it.
I'm a 5th type - Stealth Addict. I love the AC games for their stealth and will force being stealthy wether its an RPG or a dating sim lol.
As a player who has played AC 1 through AC Syndicate, I enjoyed the RPG trilogy, especially Valhalla, since we haven't had many good Viking games, and it features a dismemberment system. That's why it's a top-tier game for me, surpassing Origins and Odyssey.
This is the first I've heard about Red's budget. That gives me some hope. I just hope the writing is good
My issue with the RPG games is that it essentially has the same issues as previous AC games: too repetitive missions, the open world - while impressive - often feels copy-pasted, combat is functional but shallow, same goes for stealth and the story also is all over the place and varies from game to game imho. However, whereas pre-Origins AC games were 20 hour affairs and I was able to see past these little grievances I had with it, with a 60 or 80 or more hour game, these grievances became downright dealbreakers and unbearable. This is also compounded by the fact that I have more responsibility at work and in my private life and therefore less time for games (and honestly, I've also discovered other things that at the moment just feel more rewarding to me, e.g. reading about real history beats currently playing through a mostly accurate but still also fictionalized recreation of it). The reason why The Witcher 3 still works is because the world feels very personal very handcrafted whereas AC's recent games feel oddly lifeless to me. And the gameplay gets tedious rather quick.
Now, I still think these are impressive creations and I'm happy so many people still enjoy them, but they are not my cup of tea anymore.
That was a very interesting take. I am not exactly a ubisoft fan, neither have I been into Assassins Creed for a long time. By your take, I would go into the direction of an 'rpg enthusiast.'. I love Ghost of Tsushima and Rise of the Ronin, as I am also a big fan of Fromsoft's souls-likes.
My first Assassins Creed game was Origins and my reason for it was very simple: I love egyptian mythology. Combat, the world and Bayek were incredible. Then the successor was announced. With Odyssey I was initially incredibly excited, as I am part greek and really wanted to dive into these ancient times. The world was, without a doubt, absolutely beautiful and it was nice to have all the freedom you could have. The combat was expanded a bit, which was nice, but came with the problem of damage sponges.
Valhalla was the one I enjoyed the least. I loved the combat and the additions made to it. But it clearly suffered from an identity issue. Whenever I wanted to finish a town quietly and get the chest, I was always forced to call the crew. And while I am more an open-combat-guy, I do love to wipe out groups of enemies quietly too. That and the story was pretty uninteresting to me, hence why I was glad after 60 hours to put the game down.
I am someone who typically plays games like Bayonetta, Devil may Cry, Monster Hunter and Dynasty Warriors. Stealth games were not really my kinda style for the bigger part of my childhood. But Origins was really my gateway to another playstyle and showed me that playing fast and quiet can look just as elegant as juggling someone in the air with long combos. So, after all of that, I wanted to give one of the older titles a try and I chose Unity for that, as many are fond of it. I had gotten some positive encouragement from fans of the older titles to give it a shot and that I might enjoy it a lot. And I can fully understand now why people love the older titles that much. The satisfaction of going through a mission as quietly as possible, get close to your target and assassinate them feels the same as me pulling off those sweet perfect counters in an action game. Not to mention that a lot of youtubers make the older games look incredibly stylish with the parkour.
But...they just aren't for me. While the parkour and stealth were incredible, the open combat in the older titles is a big problem for me. It was too restrictive for me. I need my balance of stealth and combat, which is why I adore Ghost of Tsushima and Rise of the Ronin. Especially the latter, due to its deep combat system. That is also the reason why Origins clicked with me so well and why it does to this day.
Shadows will without a doubt get compared to both of them, especially with what is going on right now. But after having finished Unity, I see why people love the older games so much and I understand why they are getting frustrated. They offer something that has become lost with Valhalla. The RPGs are all great games, however, especially last two, are not AC. If they had given it a different name, or at least showed that it was a branche of Assassins Creed that focused more on the Isu lore, I think the reception would have been more positive.
We will see what the future brings. Ubisoft hasn't done a good job recently with the public, so I will wait and see how the situation evolves.
Tbh many people also story quality drop as an argument to the rpg trilogy
Somehow the rpg only started to actually suck after they started to decrease the rpg aspects
there's so many old AC fans hating on the new RPGs so I just want to get my opinion out here:
I played every AC games since AC2, and I enjoyed the RPG format a lot (except Valhalla + Isu storylines). I enjoy the old formula but I love the customization and non-linear story progression even more. It makes me feel like I'm in control of my character. RPG is also more re-playable because you can try different things for each play through.
I would say I am more of The Casual Player. My first game in the franchise ever that I played was Rogue. Then from there Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla. Then I got into Unity, Syndicate, and Black Flag. So for me I’m just a fan of the franchise but I do like the current style of RPG ones particularly in Odyssey and Origins cause of Ancient Egypt and Greece.
The RPG trilogy is really cool imo, but it just doesn't seem like ac
A big franchise game like assassins creed should develop over time. You can not expect AC games have to be about stealth, parkour, hidden blade and templars for 17 years? And btw, Ubisoft never described how an assassins creed game should be like.
I don't mind map size... I just dislike the health aspect of certain enemies. The combat from the older ones was better in my opinion
Ive recently played AC Valhalla on PS5, its the second AC game Ive played. In all honesty its one of the best open world games I've played, the world is truly stunning, I play with no HUD and it is very immersive. I love open world RPGs but I feel that this trilogy could have got away with NOT being part of the AC name.
I personally would like to see a game that returns to the classic button layout
I don’t think there is one singular reason the rpg trilogy is so unpopular, but I think many Fans just expected an assassins creed game. I’m sure the rpgs are fun, but I don’t have the patience or money to spend hundreds of hours just on one game, or way too much money on microtransactions. I’m happy to blow 60-70€ on a game that I play for 55 hours, but get a concentrated, fleshed out world, where I don’t have to grind heavy, just to continue the story. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy assassins creed so much. It’s like a big puzzle, and every sequence is a piece. I don’t have to look for the optimal way to rotate my pieces or smth, I just follow the instructions and have fun while hunting down some mean Templar guys. That’s why I largely dislike rpgs in general. Just syndicate was already a little annoying in that aspect.
I think many fans just want to have casual fun, or a real challenge within a kinda sandbox. I mean, those sandbox missions in acu and acs were really popular. And looking at the hitman games, they too still work.
Traditional ac died because of unfinished games, mostly thanks to acu‘s bad launch, which ig was interpreted as shrinking interest in the concept. Let’s hope that ac red becomes the last fully fledged rpg, and we can move on after that into Hexe. Maybe they’ll try a racing sim or fps this time.
Origins is completely fine, although we all want to play as the ultra stealthy assassin with great parkour, AC is WAY more than just stealth and parkour (and thats the reason why mirage isnt really that good) and origins nails all of those things, the stealth is actually better than many people say, and parkour, while worse than before, doesnt feel truly that bad, combine that with a perfect story that focuses on the characters, actually respects the creed, and the legacy of the franchise, its a great game, up there with ll and Black Flag imo.
I just hate the introduction of more mythological elements, monster bosses and ISU that look they represent the gods they are inspired by, rather than the people of an advanced civilization presented in the first games.
So I guess I lean more into type 2
Purist, the setting is the most compelling thing for me. I’d rather have more 20-hour games in different places and time periods than a few 100-hour ones.
I'd say I'm somewhere in between RPG enthusiast and Casual Player. I've played a decent chunk of the AC games (2, 3, 4, Unity, Syndicate, all three RPG games, and Mirage), but I've only finished Valhalla and Unity so far. Part of that is because I just don't have all that much time anymore, but a big part of that is that those two games, despite being considered some of the worst in the series at one point or another, were the games I legitimately enjoyed. I'm not a big fan of the modern day plots (although I haven't played enough of AC2 or 3 to get enough of the Desmond arc to form my opinion), and both Unity and Valhalla feel like the most refined versions of similar previous games.
I'm more of a casual AC player, but I care about the lore. I think the RPG games wouldn't have received nearly as much hate if the main characters were simply assassins within the creed, cause the argument is almost always that they're not bad games, just bad AC games. I don't fully agree with this sentiment though, because I don't mind that the stories in these games function as prequels that depict the way in which (the conflict between) the Creed and Templars came to be, while also providing more insight on the Isu and all that. I actually really enjoy these games, both in terms of gameplay and story (Valhalla not as much). But in each one there's just something missing in the general gameplay loop, which they actually have in common with the older AC games imo. You kind of mentioned it in the video already, but really...the side activities, open world exploration etc are practically identical in each game, including the RPGs.
So I do think that the RPGs are in many ways an improvement and natural evolution of the older games. And yet they're also a clear downgrade in terms of parkour, modern day story, having a single overarching canon story/ancestor etc, all of which are principal parts of the AC lore and what makes this franchise different from any other one out there. Generally I've noticed that these types of open world RPGs (regardless of the franchise/developers) are too repetitive and tedious, and have seen very little improvement or even any change at all in years now. Just about every game within the genre is basically just more of the same, but with a different skin. They lack innovation and creativity and because of it come across as mediocre/average games (the only exception within the AC franchise being Black Flag imo, I finally played it last year and have already replayed it, love that game to bits). That's what needs to change. I'm cautiously looking forward to AC Red though, I like what I've been hearing about it so far. Hopefully they finally improve the formula with this one.
I'm playing AC Odyssey right now, had a mixed expectation for the game, and damn, I'm definitely loving it! Seriously, I love the old games, specially Brotherhood, 2 and Black Flag (haven't played 3, Unity or Syndicate yet), but for now Odyssey is being at least top 3 on my list
My thoughts on Shadows (Red) will be determined by the cinematic premiering in less than 2 hours
AC Odyssey has become my comfort game. when it comes to RPG's Odyssey is an incredible game. I almost cant play the older ones anymore.
I like playing the RPG games. However, I don't like them as an assassin's creed game. I hate that it replaced the old style of games and doesn't coexist with them.
I'm fine with the RPG's I just want to play as an Assassin. Ironically I do think Odyssey is one of my favorite games, I just absolutely adore the world and how colorful and rich it is. I played Red Dead Redemption two around the same time and the graphics just looked dreary to me in contrast.
Ac rpg styls is ridiculously time consuming. that pains you most spend 100 hours to complete just one of these games.
Not really I beat odyssey in two weeks and didn’t buy no time saver I did the side quest an other stuff before doing the main mission
As someone who started the series with AC Valhalla I have to say I absolutley LOVE IT!
Sure, it's not an assassin game but with all it's deep norse and Isu lore it is defintley an Assassin's Creed game and the almost perfect viking simulator! Although I have to say I enjoyed Desmond more than Layla in the modern day part.