Any fans of the series here? Looking back, I've played and completed the first one, and maybe played part of another before being turned off by what my memory says was the exact same gameplay as...
Any fans of the series here? Looking back, I've played and completed the first one, and maybe played part of another before being turned off by what my memory says was the exact same gameplay as the first as none of the quick synopsis of the game plots sounds familiar.
Curious how gameplay has changed/improved in the last 15 years from Get up high, look around, jump into hay, shank some dudes, hide again. Any suggestions on which games to try or which to avoid?
I've played a bunch of them over the years. I think my favorite in the series may still be Brotherhood, I really liked the Ezio character and the Italian renaissance setting. The low points for me...
Exemplary
I've played a bunch of them over the years. I think my favorite in the series may still be Brotherhood, I really liked the Ezio character and the Italian renaissance setting. The low points for me were AC3 and Rogue. That was the time period when Ubisoft pivoted on the modern-day plotline and intriguing precursor-race mythology that the first games established. Those elements got a lot less coherent and took a backseat to the historical stuff. Which is fine, I love the historical stuff too, but I feel like a lot of potential was squandered.
Another pivot occurred when Origins was released. It greatly expanded the size of the open world, added RPG elements, reconfigured combat to play more like the Batman: Arkham games, and (most drastically, for me) completely dumbed down the parkour system. One of my favorite things to do in the old games was figure out the route up to the top of a tower; I really loved the Assassin's tombs and Romulus lairs that were all about just finding your way through a space to the treasure inside it. With the new games, you basically just hold the climb button and press up, and the character will scale anything.
The new games are a huge time suck. I've put hundreds of hours into Valhalla and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. Since I was a kid I've always been a video game completionist but I've met my match now, it doesn't seem humanly possible to do everything. The worlds in these newer titles are enormous, but not particularly memorable. The storytelling is legitimately good, I don't want to downplay that, despite the incoherent lore of late. There's a huge emphasis on settlement building that's fairly boring to me, and I'm not a fan of the the way weapon/armor upgrades work now (lots of collecting resources for marginal stat bumps). You'll do a lot of grinding. There is also a microtransaction store selling stupid cosmetic upgrades and stuff, I have no idea who would actually pay for any of that. (Kids today, etc. etc.)
There's also magic now, in the forms of runes you can equip and supernatural enemies you fight. It's kind of handwaved away as dreams or animus glitches or "you were poisoned by a hallucinogenic mushroom" or whatever but that feels like a cheat to me. I always loved the grounded realism of the old games.
The last few games also have nonviolent educational modes that let you explore the historical game worlds as a non-assassin, with interactive explanations of a lot of the true history behind them. This was the biggest surprise to me for the series and it's actually really cool.
I may have focused too much on the negatives. Like I said, I've played a lot of Valhalla and I'd recommend it. I've gotten a ton of enjoyment time out of it for the money I paid, and at some point I'll dive back into it for another stab at finishing the thing. Its gameplay loops are fairly addicting and do a good job of rewarding the player's personal playstyle. In some ways it's a step back from the early titles, but it's improved on them in others. One thing I will say about AC in general is it's never been afraid to experiment with new concepts, to varying degrees of success. I'm curious to see what new things Mirage will bring to the table.
You have summarized pretty well the evolution of the series. I also played pretty much every AC games, and don't really like the 'RPGization' of the series. I've managed to transform the game into...
You have summarized pretty well the evolution of the series.
I also played pretty much every AC games, and don't really like the 'RPGization' of the series.
I've managed to transform the game into its old form with the help of CheatEngines and some tables I've found on fearlessrevolution. I've managed to remove its negative aspect by boosting my damage, boosting the xp rate and ignoring resources + re-instored the insta-kill while in stealth. It limits the grind a lot, and feels a bit more like an assassin.
And I feel there is always the question of the place in which each AC plays in, which helps or hinder a lot for each player preferences. I didn't like AC 3 and AC 4 because the american and pirate settings do not really inspire me much.
But there is also our interest in gaming which changed a lot between the first one and the new ones. So maybe it's fine if new players like the new aspects of the game.
For myself, I don't see any direction gameplay wise that the AC series could take that would makes me want to play it without cheating.
Now I only play them to immerse myself into a re-imagination of a place at an historic time.
I've really liked Origins and its depiction of Ancient Egypt with Roman, Greek and Egyptian presence, their delimitation/mixing in certain places. The different places connected to the Nile geographic or human made.
Plus I've really liked the desert part of Origins. I don't really know why but I'm a sucker for desert in the AC setting (maybe the non presence of constant camps/quest/unknown point of interest).
I liked the Odyssey one, mainly for the same reasons. The desert element is mostly not there, but there is a lot of range of depicted places with their specific color palette/geographic features, while sharing a lot of the same architecture (maybe it was also an economy of game assets).
But the nature (forest/mountains) part of Ancient Greece feels really off with a certain emptiness. Compared with Red Dead Redemption 2, it takes a toll.
And I've touched Valhalla only a bit, but for the bit I've seen, it did not touch upon the feeling of discovering ancient places like Origins and Odyssey, so I've kind of let it be for now.
But I feel they could never return to their old ways in gamplay. I've tried to replay AC 2 and the stiffness that comes with the movement of Eizo feels really old unfortunately :/
The best parts of the story ended with assassins creed 3. If you want to jump in to a modern game, origins is your best bet. I would personally say avoid odyssey unless you really love Greek...
The best parts of the story ended with assassins creed 3. If you want to jump in to a modern game, origins is your best bet. I would personally say avoid odyssey unless you really love Greek mythology. Odyssey is fine for what it is but it has some of the worst level-gating I’ve seen in the entire series. Just makes me think they tried to force people to buy xp boosts and stuff. It got bad enough there were xp farm community missions in almost every zone. I’ve never played ragnarok but I can guess it will be the same as odyssey but in a Norse setting. Honestly, unless you really love the setting, these games have ran their course and should have ended the story properly years ago.
Any fans of the series here? Looking back, I've played and completed the first one, and maybe played part of another before being turned off by what my memory says was the exact same gameplay as the first as none of the quick synopsis of the game plots sounds familiar.
Curious how gameplay has changed/improved in the last 15 years from Get up high, look around, jump into hay, shank some dudes, hide again. Any suggestions on which games to try or which to avoid?
I've played a bunch of them over the years. I think my favorite in the series may still be Brotherhood, I really liked the Ezio character and the Italian renaissance setting. The low points for me were AC3 and Rogue. That was the time period when Ubisoft pivoted on the modern-day plotline and intriguing precursor-race mythology that the first games established. Those elements got a lot less coherent and took a backseat to the historical stuff. Which is fine, I love the historical stuff too, but I feel like a lot of potential was squandered.
Another pivot occurred when Origins was released. It greatly expanded the size of the open world, added RPG elements, reconfigured combat to play more like the Batman: Arkham games, and (most drastically, for me) completely dumbed down the parkour system. One of my favorite things to do in the old games was figure out the route up to the top of a tower; I really loved the Assassin's tombs and Romulus lairs that were all about just finding your way through a space to the treasure inside it. With the new games, you basically just hold the climb button and press up, and the character will scale anything.
The new games are a huge time suck. I've put hundreds of hours into Valhalla and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. Since I was a kid I've always been a video game completionist but I've met my match now, it doesn't seem humanly possible to do everything. The worlds in these newer titles are enormous, but not particularly memorable. The storytelling is legitimately good, I don't want to downplay that, despite the incoherent lore of late. There's a huge emphasis on settlement building that's fairly boring to me, and I'm not a fan of the the way weapon/armor upgrades work now (lots of collecting resources for marginal stat bumps). You'll do a lot of grinding. There is also a microtransaction store selling stupid cosmetic upgrades and stuff, I have no idea who would actually pay for any of that. (Kids today, etc. etc.)
There's also magic now, in the forms of runes you can equip and supernatural enemies you fight. It's kind of handwaved away as dreams or animus glitches or "you were poisoned by a hallucinogenic mushroom" or whatever but that feels like a cheat to me. I always loved the grounded realism of the old games.
The last few games also have nonviolent educational modes that let you explore the historical game worlds as a non-assassin, with interactive explanations of a lot of the true history behind them. This was the biggest surprise to me for the series and it's actually really cool.
I may have focused too much on the negatives. Like I said, I've played a lot of Valhalla and I'd recommend it. I've gotten a ton of enjoyment time out of it for the money I paid, and at some point I'll dive back into it for another stab at finishing the thing. Its gameplay loops are fairly addicting and do a good job of rewarding the player's personal playstyle. In some ways it's a step back from the early titles, but it's improved on them in others. One thing I will say about AC in general is it's never been afraid to experiment with new concepts, to varying degrees of success. I'm curious to see what new things Mirage will bring to the table.
You have summarized pretty well the evolution of the series.
I also played pretty much every AC games, and don't really like the 'RPGization' of the series.
I've managed to transform the game into its old form with the help of CheatEngines and some tables I've found on fearlessrevolution. I've managed to remove its negative aspect by boosting my damage, boosting the xp rate and ignoring resources + re-instored the insta-kill while in stealth. It limits the grind a lot, and feels a bit more like an assassin.
And I feel there is always the question of the place in which each AC plays in, which helps or hinder a lot for each player preferences. I didn't like AC 3 and AC 4 because the american and pirate settings do not really inspire me much.
But there is also our interest in gaming which changed a lot between the first one and the new ones. So maybe it's fine if new players like the new aspects of the game.
For myself, I don't see any direction gameplay wise that the AC series could take that would makes me want to play it without cheating.
Now I only play them to immerse myself into a re-imagination of a place at an historic time.
I've really liked Origins and its depiction of Ancient Egypt with Roman, Greek and Egyptian presence, their delimitation/mixing in certain places. The different places connected to the Nile geographic or human made.
Plus I've really liked the desert part of Origins. I don't really know why but I'm a sucker for desert in the AC setting (maybe the non presence of constant camps/quest/unknown point of interest).
I liked the Odyssey one, mainly for the same reasons. The desert element is mostly not there, but there is a lot of range of depicted places with their specific color palette/geographic features, while sharing a lot of the same architecture (maybe it was also an economy of game assets).
But the nature (forest/mountains) part of Ancient Greece feels really off with a certain emptiness. Compared with Red Dead Redemption 2, it takes a toll.
And I've touched Valhalla only a bit, but for the bit I've seen, it did not touch upon the feeling of discovering ancient places like Origins and Odyssey, so I've kind of let it be for now.
But I feel they could never return to their old ways in gamplay. I've tried to replay AC 2 and the stiffness that comes with the movement of Eizo feels really old unfortunately :/
The best parts of the story ended with assassins creed 3. If you want to jump in to a modern game, origins is your best bet. I would personally say avoid odyssey unless you really love Greek mythology. Odyssey is fine for what it is but it has some of the worst level-gating I’ve seen in the entire series. Just makes me think they tried to force people to buy xp boosts and stuff. It got bad enough there were xp farm community missions in almost every zone. I’ve never played ragnarok but I can guess it will be the same as odyssey but in a Norse setting. Honestly, unless you really love the setting, these games have ran their course and should have ended the story properly years ago.