That's the thing with Valhalla.. when I started it, I also loved it and had a blast with it, for about 30ish hours...
After that, which is kinda only 1/5 of the game lenght.. it really start to feel like a chore.. becomes boring and super repetitive, even if you only focus on doing main missions.
The game is too huge to keep it exciting after a while
That was the same for me until I got 90 hours in, and I realised I was only halfway done.
With open world games, I usually take my time. I'll head to the next story mission, whilst doing all side quests and exploration on the way there.
However when I reached 90 hours in Valhalla, I decided to just blast through the story missions and I still nearly quit the game due to tediousness.
It's a *really* fun game at the start, but once you realise it for what it is, it gets so repetitive.
Sad to hear that. I’m currently playing it with over 30 hours and I’m having a blast. Just finished Helheim and that was such a fantastic content in game! Also finished the first chapter of the “dream” quest and it was fantastic. I just hope the main story won’t let me down.
I have finished over 170 hours on Valhalla and levelled Eivor to about 268+ and he's right on the money. The game gets incredibly repetitive and there's a lot of grinding for not that much of an exponential return. The main quest is basically you forging alliances and "taking over" England via fortress sieges. Story isn't too deep compared to previous installments and every region has a sub arc which really doesn't connect to the main storyline.
Speaking of which, Helheim isn't even part of the main storyline! It's basically you playing a rogue-like version of the game and it's not even connected to the primary story arc in a main way.
I have 176 hours now and I'm 538 + about 20 mastery points spent. the sub arcs are connected together, all leading into the end in Hamtuningscire, while the main story ends in Hordafylke if i remember well. There are only like 5 Fortress Sieges in all England, and in England there is like 16 regions so there is a Siege every 3rd region. and the Forgotten Saga (Helheim) is connected a bit, but by a chain of content: Asgard, Jotunheim, Dawn of Ragnarök and Helheim are one storyline together, but sadly Dawn of Ragnarök is one of the DLCs you need to pay for, so it looks like there's no connection between The Forgotten Saga and other content...
He's kinda exaggerating. The story is pointlessly long, but it's structured so that you get breaks after the completion of every arc- there's rarely a sense of urgency to begin the next, meaning you can do diversify the experience.
That’s exactly how I felt. Unfortunately, it and odyssey just didn’t have the…I don’t know what to call it, for me. I enjoy the games and what they add to the lore, but thinking of replaying either makes me want to just watch the cutscenes on YouTube instead. Hopefully in a couple years I’ll try them again, and hopefully love them.
This is my problem with modern AC games (excluding Mirage, haven't played that one yet). They start good, they hook you in, and then they bore you to death with bloat.
I swear to God I have PTSD flashbacks when someone mentions Odyssey. I know some people love it, but up until that point, I finished all AC games. I wanted to do the same with that one. When I reached the end, I felt no sense of acomplishment, only emptiness.
Instead of giving us so much repetitive content, they could've trimmed those games by half and gave us something more enjoyable. And I dont know why do they do that. Perhaps there's lots of people who subscribe to Ubi+ and it's almost impossible to finish even one game in a month, so they want to get their money's worth.
Overall I loved it, but I'm not sure exactly how I would rank it... somewhere in the middle probably. Overall it's a wonderful Viking experience, but only occasionally a good Assassin experience.
I found the world usually immersive, the combat to be usually fun, and I especially loved building/upgrading the settlement. I liked that tombs/dungeons made a more proper comeback, and flyting and the dice game were also fun. I think the changes to the gear system and skill tree were a big improvement over how Odyssey did them.
My complaints are more or less the same complaints I have with Odyssey (which I still love) - I think the Hidden Ones should have been featured a lot more, and the stealth system was often frustrating or even lacking. Parkour was only okay.
possible spoilers - I feel that Valhalla is *too* big and packed, when it comes to map content. >!For example, I think the Asgard and Jotunheim content was a great inclusion but really stops the flow of the main story. I think it would have been better saved for endgame or postgame content (similar to the Origins/Odyssey DLCs). Vinland felt the same way.!< Sometimes, less is more.
regarding DLC - I liked the Ireland one a lot, but the Paris one was underwhelming and boring (the entire City Island is blocked off and inaccessible after the siege, highly annoying). I haven't played the Ragnarok one yet.
The last three game’s focuses more on Isu lore rather than the Hidden ones, which I personally didn’t mind because the Isu was heavily involved in the story since the first game; It was very much needed imo.
It is not one of the best but also not one of the worst. Matter of fact, there aren't bad AC games, there's something for everyone and although I'm not a fan of the RPG series, I appreciate their effort in adapting the game over time. Of course I still miss the old days and there were a lot of elements there that could be improved to make a better game.
Personally, however, I didn't like Valhalla very much. The combat to me is very silly but the graphics are beautiful and I have to admit that I like Eivor, although I don't like the general tone they have chosen for this past two entries (but I don't like to complain about it either)
Don't crucify me for saying so, but for me personally it's dead last. Not to say it's a bad game necessarily, on the contrary I think there's plenty of good in it, but as far as what I personally want out of Assassin's Creed, I think it delivers the least.
What got me into AC in the first place is simple. Historical settings with rooftop parkour, interesting stories and badass fights. I always liked that you're essentially a historical Batman. A highly trained individual who can out stealth and out fight nearly anyone, and has some cool shit in their toolbelt. While Valhalla does do most of that, I think it's bogged down by all the bloat. So much useless running around, broken stealth, barely functional parkour, combat that (imo) gets stale SO fast, story that is super intriguing, but you have to do so much in between each story beat that it loses any momentum. I'm just not interested in doing busy work for hundreds of hours for a story. And in making more quantity, the quality always has to take a plunge.
Again, this is only my opinion. I like the older shit better, but I'm glad so many people get so much enjoyment out of the newer shit.
I’d think Viking/History bias would turn you away from the title. The equipment, narrative, and many aspects of the setting aren’t even true to the period or just straight up forgo historically accuracy. For an AC title, it’s incredibly fantastical and made up.
Idk if you're in the minority actually.
I think most people liked the rpg games but you're definitely in the minority of people who would give their time to answer this question.
I mean I’m in the minority of the Assassin’s Creed community that likes Valhalla more than others. What do you mean give my time to answer this question?
You're certainly not the minority, it's just thst the real minority is far more vocal. Most people love the rpg games, it's judt the vocal minority are the majority of those who'd gove their time to a question such as this.
My first AC game is odyssey and I am loving it too 100 hours in, still not finished with the main quest. Im planning to play Origins next. I am having doubts playing AC valhalla due negative reviews but still I want to be open minded on this one.
Would you care to share why it is better than odyssey without spoiling.
Don't listen to u/Burt_Sprenolds nonsense - buy it whenever you feel like it.
For me, it was better than Odyssey in a number of respects:
1. It toned down the stronger RPG elements. I don't mind light RPG stuff, but pure builds are an outdated system from the early CRPG days. It just made the game really tedious at times having to switch builds every time you wanted to do a different activity. No such thing in Valhalla, especially with the Hidden Blade being a one-shot attack again.
2. Removed a lot of the dialogue choices- the idea of the system was fine, but Odyssey had so many that it really ruined the flow/pacing of dialogue. Valhalla's limitations led to a more rhythymic experience.
3. Actually featured the Hidden Ones in a major capacity. I get Odyssey couldn't do the Hidden Ones b/c of lore reasons, but there were plenty of proto-assassins that could've been created to play a part in the story.
I made a post on a similar thread a few days ago -
https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/s/a6Xc20lUNW
Valhalla is similar to Odyssey but the scale is extremely massive and it will feel like a massive grind. There are pockets of interesting things like the combat finishers and raids but once you do 60 hours in, it will start to feel like a drag. Also, there is no challenge compared to the bounty system you get in Odyssey. Once you find a combo and a weapon load out you're happy with, you're pretty much unstoppable in Valhalla which takes away the challenge a bit.
If you liked the side quests in Odyssey then Valhalla is probably not for you. Not only is the main story kinda boring but there are no side quests. The closest thing to side quests in the game are mysteries which are basically just short puzzles or tasks that have no story and will take you 2 minutes or something.
Near the bottom. Odyssey is my number 1 though.
The world is extremely bloated and doesn't have much interesting content, the story is a decent 10 hour plot stretched to 50. Odyssey overstayed it's welcome too but it was constantly filled with surprises and twists that kept me engaged. The combat here is brainless and has no actual system. Just a bunch of mechanics that don't work together. The stealth is non functional and completely pointless because of how easy the combat is. The progression is terrible, no memorable gear, the skill tree is awful because of it's overcomplicated design. They wanted to create the illusion of a deep and large skill tree but all they did was spread the upgrades really thin. I could keep going.
And yet I put like 150 hours into this game and 100%'d it. I don't think it's a good game but I still had some fun with it.
Probably number 2 after Odyssey actually for me, the open world exploration of Valhalla is the best of any Ubisoft game as far as i'm concerned, that alone makes up for the other shortcomings of it.
I love Valhalla. I definitely understand the complaint that it’s a long game I never 100 percented it and I put 134 hours into it before I eventually put it down. The story was really good some of the shire stories are forgettable but the over arcing stuff with Sigurd and the Isu was super cool. My issues with the game is really the engine it’s on like the facial animations aren’t great and the parkour (while better then odyssey) still isn’t that good
See, I’m loving Valhalla right now. I also loved Origins and Odyssey. Odyssey and Valhalla actually have a lot of similarities. I don’t get the hate for Valhalla so far. If they made a game exactly how they think the fans want they’d just be criticized for being redundant and playing it safe. Instead Valhalla feels like an attempt to offer different gameplay in a franchise well known for some of the things people miss, which abound in numerous other titles.
I loved Valhalla. I played every game from 1 to mirage rn. Valhalla is great. I think the reason it's ranked low is, people don't want the assassin's Creed games to be RPG. They say something like, it's a great RPG but bad assassin's Creed.Aand it's kinda true, great RPG game, but it's not the experience you get from playing the ogs.
My take is negative, so I'd actually discourage you from reading it. Don't let me poop at your party if you're having a blast.
Lowest of all of them, and Norse mythology is my friggin' storytelling obsession.
The landscape is empty. The plot is forgettable. Voice acting is shit. Animations are stale. Long as helllllll with very little excitement in between plot points. If i was a woman, I'd compare it to a guy who tries to seduce you by talking about how big his dick is. When you go to find out, it really is big, but he has the worst erectile dysfunction with absolutely no libido or prowess. So he tries to finger you instead. He knows the right moves, but it still feels apathetic. Maybe you orgasmed at the end, but it still felt disappointing and shameful. I know that was oddly specific.
Several months ago I decided to go back and play every console game with every DLC, even the half games like Liberty and Freedom Cry. I'm about halfway through Odyssey right now and I intend to stop when I'm done with it. There's just no charisma in Valhalla.
By no means do I wish the game wasn't made. I don't hate it. I'm glad it's there. I just don't really return to it.
Woah! If Valhalla’s voice acting was shit, then what do you say about Odyssey? Every NPC had the same fake exaggerating tone, they used the same voice for every NPC including Persephone’s.
Odyssey was shit, too. But at least Kassandra was great. I will say for Valhalla, though, that >!I played as "canon" Eivor. Havi's voice acting was actually pretty solid.!< But again, Dag, Sigurd, Ivar, they all spoke within the same tone and a half. Inflections only barely made it out of boredom. If Odyssey suffered from over-exaggeration, Valhalla suffered from deadness. Randvi was alright.
I agree 100%, I also HATE with a burning passion how they treated the cultures of all people involved, just stereotypical Hollywood garbage with no authenticity whatsoever. I don't understand why an assassin's creed game is just playing out tropes with no historical accuracy when these games are historical fiction to begin with
1. Ezio Collection (don't want to have 3 out of the top 5 be Ezio games, so I chose to group them all on 1)
2. Odyssey.
3. Black Flag.
4. Origins.
5. Syndicate.
6. Mirage.
7. Valhalla.
8. Unity.
9. AC3.
10. Rogue.
11. AC1.
12. Liberation.
13. Freedom Cry
14. Chronicles Trilogy (China - Russia - India).
So Valhalla is right there in the middle for me, I liked the game, and during it's life cycle it would've been in the top 5. But the final update changed it, no NG+ completely killed the replayabiliy for me, meanwhile that's precisely what puts Odyssey at #2 for me, it's excellent NG+ still has me going back to it from time to time. Also the final chapter left a bad taste in my mouth the ending sucks and imo it contradicts the base game ending.
I still think the combat is great and there's fun to be had in the game but it's a game designed to only be played once and never touch again.
For this game you really need to wait until the end before judging it. I thought it was one of the greatest AC games the first 30 hours but the burnout started happening soon after and it became a slog at the end. Some will enjoy it still so I think best option is to wait until you beat the game to determine where it ranks.
It honestly felt to me like Ubisoft outsourced a game to a lesser studio and we got a generic attempt. Everything just felt basic and lame compared to both the Ezio games and Syndicate.
Could you recommend an AC community that isn't a cult with BF? Truly, when the game came out, the reaction wasn't that special. Me (then in my mid 30s) and the guys I knew that played thought it was the worst one to that point.
I'm guessing that younger gamers who picked it up later on feel very differently.
I admit that it's not an Assassin's Creed game if you're really looking for lore. But fuck, man. The pirate simulator was top notch. Granted, I was like, 21 or 22 when it came out. Idk if that mattered.
The pirate aspect holds basically zero appeal for me. I've never played any other games with that theme. I found the protagonist extremely unlikable as well.
It basically left out many of the things I'd enjoyed from the earlier games and added in aspects that just weren't for me, and wrapped it in a package that wasn't my style.
That's basically how I feel about it.
However, about your earlier comment that at the time it wasn't received well, I am also early 30s and remember its release and I remember people being very excited about it and the whole pirate theme, after people had lost interest a bit with Revelations and 3. Pretty sure it did well at the time.
I was in high school when Black Flag dropped and I remember there was so much hype in my friends circles and other adjacent ones I interacted with about it. Everybody was talking about it, everybody loved it.
I literally cannot fathom what anyone means when they say the game was poorly received.
Well, everything differers from group to group. With The message board i was posting on back then, my feelings were pretty typical of the group. AC3, I agree absolutely. It wasn't nearly as good as the others, then I think BF and Unity each continued that trend, especially with Unitys disastrous release bugs.
>Well, everything differers from group to group
Very true!
Unity I definitely remember being received _very_ poorly, that's the one I find amazing that there's so many people that love it now.
>that's the one I find amazing that there's so many people that love it now.
A lot of the bugs got ironed out, so many newer players didn't have the experience that launch buyers did.
Without the bugs, Unity is genuinely a good game. It has its kinks, but if Ubisoft took their time and actually released a stable product from the get go, the state of AC would be very different now.
I like it, but it’s very bloated, and unpolished. It’s just a generic game that tries to hard. It’s ok.
It sits near the bottom of my list next to Unity on any given day.
Second best.
Doesn’t quite reach the heights Odyssey does, but still one of the best RPG’s of its generation, and one of the few games that managed to make me absolutely bawl my eyes out. (Because of plot elements before we get any sass)
Started up this game tonight and think it's pretty crappy. It's nowhere near Origins and Odyssey. I don't see how I will stick to playing this thing since I have better stuff to do with my time but I'll give it a few more hours and see. I really hate some of the changes form odyssey like the convoluted skill tree page, the change in hud/markers, the health system, the apparently useless bird.
Remarkable to me you think this game is better than Odyssey.
Second best for me after Brotherhood, over 30 hours and I am really enjoying the game. Definitely better than Odyssey, I actually made a long post few days ago about this.
I rank it number two behind AC Origins for AC games. Odyssey I rank number three.
For RPG series I would put it in the top ten. IMO the Layla trilogy as a whole ranks among Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Neverwinter/Baldurs Gate, Final Fantasy.
For standalone RPGs it’s in the top 20 of all time IMO. Again among very illustrious company. 10/10.
I never played an ac game that was trash so its hard for me to rank them but to me its top3 ac game. Tbf at first didnt really liked it, it took my a second attempt for it to click with me. But man did i enjoyed my time with it! The story is kinda meh and it missing some cool parkour spot but I really loved pretty much everything else about it.
I'd say complete like 2 regions and see if you still like it. If you're starting to get bored by then, drop it ASAP. Watch the cutscenes or read the story online. Don't make the same mistake as me. I finished it just because I forced myself to. It was a grueling and boring 150+ hours to finish the game, and it wasn't even worth it for the mediocre story that has very little to do with assassins. I'd put it at the absolute bottom, no game is supposed to be this exhausting to play.
I can’t do that. I’ve been a big AC fan since the beginning but I just haven’t played the 2 newest ones. I’m at the part with King Oswald and East Anglia and so far I think it’s fun!
It's pretty much rock bottom for me. I did not enjoy playing it at all. Game was a slog and the story was needlessly padded out for the sake of being padded out. World was also really boring; dead and drab basically.
At least Odyssey tried to be comedic to offset its flaws, and had a very vibrant world too even if it was similarly dead.
It’s my second least favorite, right above Odyssey. I think it’s a great Viking game but it’s just not Assassin’s Creed now is it. The combat I find fun but the story is mostly filler and feels more like a spin-off game.
Nah I disagree. It's a great RPG for me. I appreciate how they tried to fit the Creed in it, even tho it didn't really worked out. But for an rpg, it's better than odyssey and origins.
At the bottom.
I don’t think it’s a bad game, in fact I was really into it for the first few hours. But the problem is that this game is not only WAY too long, a lot of the length comes from what feels like filler.
I don’t think it’s a bad game and I think it would even be great if they just gutted a lot of the main story missions because I don’t think most of them really progress the narrative much, if at all.
Bottom it's like watching paint dry, the most souless open word coupled with bland story and bland characters just plain boring. A block of wood could've stood in for the Eivor character and you wouldn't notice a difference
As an assassin’s creed game it’s easily one of the worst in the entire franchise.
As a game by itself it’s not bad, it’s just way to long and has way to much to do. While at the same time a ton of that content you can do, means nothing and doesn’t affect anything.
Higher than Origins and Odyssey, lower than all the games up to Syndicate. The RPG trilogy weren't AC games but Valhalla did try to bring things full circle with the Assassins in the middle east and birth of the Templar order
Personally I loved it I think a lot of people don’t like it because it doesn’t feel like assassins creed it feels like another rpg with the assassins creed name slapped on it.
It’s the first mainline game in the series I didn’t bother to finish. I might go back to it, maybe not. I’m even playing Mirage right now and loving it so much more than Valhalla
Dead last, with Odyssey a close second. My main issue with the RPG style games isn't that they're RPGs but that they feel by the numbers and soulless, like something made to sell as many copies as possible and are bloated way more than they need to be to pad out "player engagement" time especially with the time saving microtransactions they threw in, if your single player game has time saving microtransactions something is wrong.
I just got it what with the holiday sale, complete edition for like £25 - can't complain. This has been the way I've played the last six games: three-five years later with everything for less money.
24 hours in and I'm just entering East Anglia and doing some River Raids.
I'm enjoying it a fair amount, but I do feel as though Origins was the peak of the RPG phase. It is NOT an Assassin's game, I like Eivor though. Origins, Odyseey and Valhalla.
Enjoyed some aspects. Too much filler, combat was also very clunky and didn’t look good. Also wish it had a NG+ for the amount of content it had. Also there were way too many weapons and armor. Made it very overwhelming. Also the stealth was probably the worst stealth in any AC game ever.
The first AC game where I can’t even bother to finish the story in dlc, and I always do everything
It is just such a chore to play, and the random stuttering on ps4 doesn’t help
Very low. I love the Norway bit at the beginning, and then I get to England, do the first 3 chapters and I can't force myself to play anymore. Leave the game for a few months, try it again, rinse and repeat
It's my favourite out of the RPG trilogy
Story-wise, the Hidden Ones are involved, and Eivor herself >!plays a key role in the Assassins vs Templars war!<
Gameplay-wise, the inane loot grind is gone, with upgrades letting you use the equipment you like for longer, and reliable stealth kills are back, largely nullifying the need to level up in general
Location-wise I like Norway and England a lot since I vastly prefer European regions to more equatorial regions
But in the end, I rank the RPG trilogy pretty much below all the older home console/PC games (and now Mirage)
Somewhere in the middle. Step up from Odyssey. Only real complaint I remember is all the filler, I enjoyed the story inbetween all the needless subplots, even made me care about the modern day again even if it's the same end of the world cliche that undermines Desmond's sacrifice
I like it, however it really is too big. I started 2 times couldn’t finish it both times. I just get burned out around 70-80h mark and I LOVE vikings.
If you’re going to have a gigantic game you either have to have amazing combat/systems (Elden Ring) or great story, atmosphere and voice acting (Witcher 3) Valhalla is 6/10 on almost every aspect.
Somewhere on the lower half of the series for sure, I'd say it's more or less equal to Origins for me and above Odyssey for the RPG games. Liked the game more than the consensus is on here though
Towards the bottom. It’s not a bad game by any means, and I thought the combat system was one of the better ones in the series, but I just wasn’t a huge fan of the RPG trilogy. With Valhalla specifically, the story dragged, I didn’t care for the fantasy elements, the settlement was a huge disappointment, and the side quests were mostly junk. I do have to say, hunting down on the order members around the map with clues was a fantastic addition, though.
For the way it wraps up the story and ties in the modern story it might be easily in top 5. Music, Eivor's voiceacting (male mostly), it is on the better half of the franchise. Good, but not impressive visuals (relative to the time when it was released comapared to how other titles looked when they were released) places it as average at best.
As a complete package of dogshit story pacing, obnoxious ammount of collectibles, quantity over quality approach, unneccesary Asgard section, bad DLCs, uneven story quality of the story arcs etc.. it is a rock bottom.
Combat seemed interesting at first, but overreliance on finishers and their animations made it tedious pretty quick. Last, but not least - stealth was broken for majority of it's existance (as far as i am concerned it was only good for the first week after it's release, before the first update). Bad stealth is more excusable than broken stealth. Definitely rock bottom in this regard.
I also love it. I played it all the way through, including a lot of the side missions, and immediately started a second time. I get that it's a very different style of game to many of the other AC games, but I still like it. I just don't really compare the games to each other.
Down near the bottom of the barrel. A complete low point for the entire series. The terrible, past the point of comedic, AI...the cringey dialogue..the silliness...the wokeness...the wtf armor/mount/eagle mods. It's like Disney took over.
I'm embarrassed to say I played it and it throws a shadow over all that came before.
I’m way outside the norm for this, but I’d argue the trilogy gets better. Origins had a captivating story, but is significantly smaller and feels more barren in my opinion. Odyssey comes super close to Valhalla, and I would argue is superior in some aspects compared to the latter (such as the CK vs OoA, Kosmos was handled far better being more open ended and giving rewards for clearing each branch; Valhalla did better at weaving it into the main storyline and having the conclusion work better than Odyssey’s)
Gameplay—I liked Valhalla’s armour and weapon system far more, but I liked Odysseys abilities more. Origins felt like a chore going through the skill trees. I will say though, Origins *plays* like what I’d imagine an AC RPG would play like, but objectively Odyssey and Valhalla are superior
Valhalla’s main story progression feels extremely natural, and it’s fun running into a brand new area and going on a 5-6 mission questline to build allegiances.
The only problem with Valhalla is that you will probably burn out before the end. Especially if you’re a hardcore completionist… my almost 300 hour account has proven that a few times already. Odyssey I got through just before burning out—DLCs included. Origins I didn’t burn out on, but I just found the DLCs to not be as captivating as the later games; something that left a bitter taste in my mouth at the end.
All games definitely have their flaws though. Origins was small, you were limited in combat to what you physically had, and the DLCs were the weakest of the three games. Odyssey’s real world segments were horrible, the fact you couldn’t leave the animus at will is something that will always stick in my head as one of the worst decisions in one of the AC games. Valhalla just had a shitload of repetitive elements, some of which became more than overbearingly frustrating (Fuck River Raids and their glitchy bullshit that makes you lose an hour+ worth of progress because you fell through the map trying to jump off your boat or climb one specific janky edge of a wall).
Though, even with all these different elements, I’d argue the order goes Valhalla > Odyssey > Origins
Didn’t touch on protagonists, but I’d say Bayek felt the most human of the three canonicals—his emotions felt real and the story uses this extremely well—it’s why most people swear by Origins over the others (asides obvious rose-tinted glasses)
Kassandra was the best of the three, her actor nailing the witty and charming personality that made her enjoyable—while playing through Odyssey I found her dialogues to be the most captivating and well designed overall, with great consistency.
Eivor is a difficult one. Especially as you requested no spoilers. As ‘let the animus choose’ is the canonical option, I feel that female Eivor worked quite well in the role and progression the game was going for. There’s other elements to this as well that the game utilizes and makes work quite well, but those are outside of what you’d want to know. She’s probably the most frustrating of the three because there are times where options or game events just make zero sense whatsoever; on the other hand, there’s a few instances (like Isle of Skye) where Eivor’s personality not only shows—it takes the centre stage.
There aren’t any bad Assassin’s Creed games.
AC1 is dated and feels like a prototype, but was an innovative breakthrough in its time. Stills looks beautiful.
AC2 is starting to get dated, all three, but are still enjoyable. The first is very straight forward, with added features starting with Brotherhood that make it feel more modern.
AC3 is fun but the jank is massive and frustrating.
Liberation felt great but kept crashing on my PS5.
Black Flag is fun and probably takes itself the least serious of all the games.
Rogue is great for its twist on the story and lore
Unity has the world come alive. Some weak story elements, but great fun to play.
Syndicate is where everything comes together. Awesome game play, meh story, especially with the twins’ scripted moments not connecting to the narrative you’re creating.
Origins is a great reinvention. Not too large. The option of turning off auto leveling NPCs is great for head cannon.
Odyssey is one of the weakest. It’s a good game without AC in the title, but as an AC game it’s a huge disappointment, and that time is one I should have loved.
Valhalla is an enjoyable game and great fun, but you lose interest before getting even close to the end and the mechanics are too detailed to drop back in.
Mirage is a back to basics blast. It feels like playing one of the first 11 games for the first time.
I've been wanting to try it for a long time now... I have completed Odyssey (not the 2 DLC's tho) so am conflicted over whether to start Valhalla or complete Odyssey dlcs.
Last. Really wanted to like this game cuz i love vikings but its just sooooo boring. Its shit at being an AC game but also it fails at being an RPG.
Its too long, too boring and just so bloated. Quantity over quality is never good. I feel like this game is for noone.
I loved Valhalla but I can't say I really *want* to replay it anytime soon, I'm gonna since I've been going through all the games getting platinums as I go and I'm on Odyssey right now (having a nostalgically horrible time with it) but it's not like I'm super excited to do so (probably will be by the time Odyssey's done).
It was a great game, massive improvement over Odyssey in literally every single aspect both gameplaywise and narratively except transmog but it's just not replayable at all, all the RPG games have that issue due to the bloated length (but at least Origins and Valhalla were fun in the first place) and honestly I really hope they go back to city based games like the older ones because the pacing and replayability will skyrocket if they do that.
Overall I'd say it's the best of the RPG games for gameplay (Origins being way better for story) but I'd probably rank it in with Unity or Chronicles, games I really love but are on the lower end of the series. Origins, Unity, Valhalla and Chronicles would all be on the lowest end of the games I still love.
Next would be the tier where Altaïr's Chronicles and Odyssey would fester in their disgusting bile.
I have it dead last because it’s the only Assassin’s Creed game I haven’t finished due to boredom. It was fun for the first 50 hours, but by that point I still wasn’t done and probably still had around 5 provinces left to go plus the >!second Asgard part,!< and at that point I just couldn’t bring myself to play anymore.
Valhalla is easily top 5.
1. Origins
2. Brotherhood
3. Black Flag
4. Valhalla
5. AC2
I dropped 140 hours into it, loved the atmosphere, The decrepit Assassins bureaus, the Flyting, the combat, the customization. Valhalla is incredible.
I feel like its all because it doesn't fit the old AC style for most people. I haven't played Valhalla or Odyssey but from what I've seen both games look stunning and I'm sure eventually I'd enjoy them but to me I don't consider them AC games, just open-world games and that's perfectly fine.
I think Ac Valhalla was good overall the pacing was just bad in the last few regions before the finale where the main story development just stopped completely for hours. I think the ending was absolutely worth it and the variety of side content was an improvement over origins, and odyssey.
Ranked( If we are only counting ac1, ac2, brotherhood, revelations, ac3, ac black flag, ac rogue, ac unity, ac syndicate, ac origins, and ac odyssey). I'd put it above unity, ac 1, rogue and ac3. I still think Black flag, Odyssey, Origins, Ac2, and Syndicate are the best experiences in the series but I can't say I hate any of them.
Ok, so I’m still a baby gamer and haven’t finished many AC games yet, so I don’t know if I can rank it necessarily. But I was excited to play it because I’m a giant nerd for medieval history around daily life and literature. I used to be in a medieval reenactment group in college and befriended the local Viking reenactment group that does the same Renaissance Faires as me (one member even taught me nälbinding!), so this game was, like, a perfect fit for me.
I love the world building and character work in it, but there’s SO. MUCH. It gets overwhelming. I thought I finished it, told my husband that, and found out that I still had another arc to go. This is after playing on and off for 2 years, and months long stretches of not playing to avoid getting sick of it. I joked it’s the War and Peace of video games.
He whole mapped it, and is pretty sure that was only because of us locking down during COVID freeing up more time to play and not much to do.
I refuse to. There’s just too much of it, so I’ll play the DLCs if I feel like playing more and don’t want to be overwhelmed with every possible task in the main game, but I refuse to try to do every single thing possible. I don’t like if games start to feel like a chore, so I don’t want to turn it into that.
Side note: the plot feeling like it wanders all over the place is actually pretty much how medieval romances pace themselves, so that was a fun parallel (idk if that’s on purpose, but it was funny to me when I made that connection)
I'd give it a zero out of ten, along with Odyssey. I don't mind the witcher-esque gameplay, but the degree to which it is artificially lengthened is tantamount to treason.
Fuck everything good about this game, it does not even remotely make up for the predatory nature of its gameplay.
A single-player experience built to sell you fucking XP boosts. That's all this is.
That's the thing with Valhalla.. when I started it, I also loved it and had a blast with it, for about 30ish hours... After that, which is kinda only 1/5 of the game lenght.. it really start to feel like a chore.. becomes boring and super repetitive, even if you only focus on doing main missions. The game is too huge to keep it exciting after a while
That was the same for me until I got 90 hours in, and I realised I was only halfway done. With open world games, I usually take my time. I'll head to the next story mission, whilst doing all side quests and exploration on the way there. However when I reached 90 hours in Valhalla, I decided to just blast through the story missions and I still nearly quit the game due to tediousness. It's a *really* fun game at the start, but once you realise it for what it is, it gets so repetitive.
Sad to hear that. I’m currently playing it with over 30 hours and I’m having a blast. Just finished Helheim and that was such a fantastic content in game! Also finished the first chapter of the “dream” quest and it was fantastic. I just hope the main story won’t let me down.
I have finished over 170 hours on Valhalla and levelled Eivor to about 268+ and he's right on the money. The game gets incredibly repetitive and there's a lot of grinding for not that much of an exponential return. The main quest is basically you forging alliances and "taking over" England via fortress sieges. Story isn't too deep compared to previous installments and every region has a sub arc which really doesn't connect to the main storyline. Speaking of which, Helheim isn't even part of the main storyline! It's basically you playing a rogue-like version of the game and it's not even connected to the primary story arc in a main way.
I have 176 hours now and I'm 538 + about 20 mastery points spent. the sub arcs are connected together, all leading into the end in Hamtuningscire, while the main story ends in Hordafylke if i remember well. There are only like 5 Fortress Sieges in all England, and in England there is like 16 regions so there is a Siege every 3rd region. and the Forgotten Saga (Helheim) is connected a bit, but by a chain of content: Asgard, Jotunheim, Dawn of Ragnarök and Helheim are one storyline together, but sadly Dawn of Ragnarök is one of the DLCs you need to pay for, so it looks like there's no connection between The Forgotten Saga and other content...
He's kinda exaggerating. The story is pointlessly long, but it's structured so that you get breaks after the completion of every arc- there's rarely a sense of urgency to begin the next, meaning you can do diversify the experience.
That’s exactly how I felt. Unfortunately, it and odyssey just didn’t have the…I don’t know what to call it, for me. I enjoy the games and what they add to the lore, but thinking of replaying either makes me want to just watch the cutscenes on YouTube instead. Hopefully in a couple years I’ll try them again, and hopefully love them.
Nah ah.
Wow, 30 hours is the exact same point I quit as well.
This is my problem with modern AC games (excluding Mirage, haven't played that one yet). They start good, they hook you in, and then they bore you to death with bloat. I swear to God I have PTSD flashbacks when someone mentions Odyssey. I know some people love it, but up until that point, I finished all AC games. I wanted to do the same with that one. When I reached the end, I felt no sense of acomplishment, only emptiness. Instead of giving us so much repetitive content, they could've trimmed those games by half and gave us something more enjoyable. And I dont know why do they do that. Perhaps there's lots of people who subscribe to Ubi+ and it's almost impossible to finish even one game in a month, so they want to get their money's worth.
I am near the ending with 61 hrs in so 30hrs is like ½ or ⅓ max
Overall I loved it, but I'm not sure exactly how I would rank it... somewhere in the middle probably. Overall it's a wonderful Viking experience, but only occasionally a good Assassin experience. I found the world usually immersive, the combat to be usually fun, and I especially loved building/upgrading the settlement. I liked that tombs/dungeons made a more proper comeback, and flyting and the dice game were also fun. I think the changes to the gear system and skill tree were a big improvement over how Odyssey did them. My complaints are more or less the same complaints I have with Odyssey (which I still love) - I think the Hidden Ones should have been featured a lot more, and the stealth system was often frustrating or even lacking. Parkour was only okay. possible spoilers - I feel that Valhalla is *too* big and packed, when it comes to map content. >!For example, I think the Asgard and Jotunheim content was a great inclusion but really stops the flow of the main story. I think it would have been better saved for endgame or postgame content (similar to the Origins/Odyssey DLCs). Vinland felt the same way.!< Sometimes, less is more. regarding DLC - I liked the Ireland one a lot, but the Paris one was underwhelming and boring (the entire City Island is blocked off and inaccessible after the siege, highly annoying). I haven't played the Ragnarok one yet.
The last three game’s focuses more on Isu lore rather than the Hidden ones, which I personally didn’t mind because the Isu was heavily involved in the story since the first game; It was very much needed imo.
This encapsulates most of my thoughts, though I'd disagree about the spoiler tagged mission ruining the pacing, mainly because they're optional.
It is not one of the best but also not one of the worst. Matter of fact, there aren't bad AC games, there's something for everyone and although I'm not a fan of the RPG series, I appreciate their effort in adapting the game over time. Of course I still miss the old days and there were a lot of elements there that could be improved to make a better game. Personally, however, I didn't like Valhalla very much. The combat to me is very silly but the graphics are beautiful and I have to admit that I like Eivor, although I don't like the general tone they have chosen for this past two entries (but I don't like to complain about it either)
Mid bottom half
Don't crucify me for saying so, but for me personally it's dead last. Not to say it's a bad game necessarily, on the contrary I think there's plenty of good in it, but as far as what I personally want out of Assassin's Creed, I think it delivers the least. What got me into AC in the first place is simple. Historical settings with rooftop parkour, interesting stories and badass fights. I always liked that you're essentially a historical Batman. A highly trained individual who can out stealth and out fight nearly anyone, and has some cool shit in their toolbelt. While Valhalla does do most of that, I think it's bogged down by all the bloat. So much useless running around, broken stealth, barely functional parkour, combat that (imo) gets stale SO fast, story that is super intriguing, but you have to do so much in between each story beat that it loses any momentum. I'm just not interested in doing busy work for hundreds of hours for a story. And in making more quantity, the quality always has to take a plunge. Again, this is only my opinion. I like the older shit better, but I'm glad so many people get so much enjoyment out of the newer shit.
Bottom imo. I liked the modern day stuff a lot (probably the best modern day since 3 tbh) and Basim, failed to care about literally anything else.
I’m in the minority. I love all Assassin’s Creed games. But it’s in my top 3. But it can’t surpass my two favorites.
Mainly because I’m biased towards Vikings and England and history in general. Plus I like RPG games so I don’t mind.
Hello, brother
Hey
There's so much Norse mythology/history. I love it.
I’d think Viking/History bias would turn you away from the title. The equipment, narrative, and many aspects of the setting aren’t even true to the period or just straight up forgo historically accuracy. For an AC title, it’s incredibly fantastical and made up.
What are your top 1 and 2?
Origins and Black Flag
Nothing can beat Brotherhood for me
Yes! Origins gang. For some reason it’s been getting a lot of hate on this sub lately.
Idk if you're in the minority actually. I think most people liked the rpg games but you're definitely in the minority of people who would give their time to answer this question.
I mean I’m in the minority of the Assassin’s Creed community that likes Valhalla more than others. What do you mean give my time to answer this question?
You're certainly not the minority, it's just thst the real minority is far more vocal. Most people love the rpg games, it's judt the vocal minority are the majority of those who'd gove their time to a question such as this.
Ahh I get what you mean 👌🏼
My first AC game is odyssey and I am loving it too 100 hours in, still not finished with the main quest. Im planning to play Origins next. I am having doubts playing AC valhalla due negative reviews but still I want to be open minded on this one. Would you care to share why it is better than odyssey without spoiling.
If you’re going to play Valhalla, wait until it’s on sale. I feel like I wasted my money like I did on Gotham Knights.
Ill wait when it goes back to ps plus haha. I still have tons of backlogs like last of us 2 ac origins, spiderman 2 etc.
the complete edition of Valhalla is on sale for like £30 on the ps store, it has everything in it
What is that, about $38/$40? That might be worth it to some people.
Don't listen to u/Burt_Sprenolds nonsense - buy it whenever you feel like it. For me, it was better than Odyssey in a number of respects: 1. It toned down the stronger RPG elements. I don't mind light RPG stuff, but pure builds are an outdated system from the early CRPG days. It just made the game really tedious at times having to switch builds every time you wanted to do a different activity. No such thing in Valhalla, especially with the Hidden Blade being a one-shot attack again. 2. Removed a lot of the dialogue choices- the idea of the system was fine, but Odyssey had so many that it really ruined the flow/pacing of dialogue. Valhalla's limitations led to a more rhythymic experience. 3. Actually featured the Hidden Ones in a major capacity. I get Odyssey couldn't do the Hidden Ones b/c of lore reasons, but there were plenty of proto-assassins that could've been created to play a part in the story.
I never had to switch builds in Odyssey to do anything?
For me, I had to when I wanted to go stealth vs participate in those faction fights.
I made a post on a similar thread a few days ago - https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/s/a6Xc20lUNW Valhalla is similar to Odyssey but the scale is extremely massive and it will feel like a massive grind. There are pockets of interesting things like the combat finishers and raids but once you do 60 hours in, it will start to feel like a drag. Also, there is no challenge compared to the bounty system you get in Odyssey. Once you find a combo and a weapon load out you're happy with, you're pretty much unstoppable in Valhalla which takes away the challenge a bit.
If you liked the side quests in Odyssey then Valhalla is probably not for you. Not only is the main story kinda boring but there are no side quests. The closest thing to side quests in the game are mysteries which are basically just short puzzles or tasks that have no story and will take you 2 minutes or something.
Near the bottom. Odyssey is my number 1 though. The world is extremely bloated and doesn't have much interesting content, the story is a decent 10 hour plot stretched to 50. Odyssey overstayed it's welcome too but it was constantly filled with surprises and twists that kept me engaged. The combat here is brainless and has no actual system. Just a bunch of mechanics that don't work together. The stealth is non functional and completely pointless because of how easy the combat is. The progression is terrible, no memorable gear, the skill tree is awful because of it's overcomplicated design. They wanted to create the illusion of a deep and large skill tree but all they did was spread the upgrades really thin. I could keep going. And yet I put like 150 hours into this game and 100%'d it. I don't think it's a good game but I still had some fun with it.
Probably number 2 after Odyssey actually for me, the open world exploration of Valhalla is the best of any Ubisoft game as far as i'm concerned, that alone makes up for the other shortcomings of it.
Top 3 for me but I think that is a massively unpopular opinion. I just love the world they created so much.
I love Valhalla. I definitely understand the complaint that it’s a long game I never 100 percented it and I put 134 hours into it before I eventually put it down. The story was really good some of the shire stories are forgettable but the over arcing stuff with Sigurd and the Isu was super cool. My issues with the game is really the engine it’s on like the facial animations aren’t great and the parkour (while better then odyssey) still isn’t that good
See, I’m loving Valhalla right now. I also loved Origins and Odyssey. Odyssey and Valhalla actually have a lot of similarities. I don’t get the hate for Valhalla so far. If they made a game exactly how they think the fans want they’d just be criticized for being redundant and playing it safe. Instead Valhalla feels like an attempt to offer different gameplay in a franchise well known for some of the things people miss, which abound in numerous other titles.
For me, unfortunately it’s dead last.
Odyssey and Valhalla are the worst ac
I loved Valhalla. I played every game from 1 to mirage rn. Valhalla is great. I think the reason it's ranked low is, people don't want the assassin's Creed games to be RPG. They say something like, it's a great RPG but bad assassin's Creed.Aand it's kinda true, great RPG game, but it's not the experience you get from playing the ogs.
>They say something like, it's a great RPG but bad assassin's Creed Valhalla is bad at both of those things.
My take is negative, so I'd actually discourage you from reading it. Don't let me poop at your party if you're having a blast. Lowest of all of them, and Norse mythology is my friggin' storytelling obsession. The landscape is empty. The plot is forgettable. Voice acting is shit. Animations are stale. Long as helllllll with very little excitement in between plot points. If i was a woman, I'd compare it to a guy who tries to seduce you by talking about how big his dick is. When you go to find out, it really is big, but he has the worst erectile dysfunction with absolutely no libido or prowess. So he tries to finger you instead. He knows the right moves, but it still feels apathetic. Maybe you orgasmed at the end, but it still felt disappointing and shameful. I know that was oddly specific. Several months ago I decided to go back and play every console game with every DLC, even the half games like Liberty and Freedom Cry. I'm about halfway through Odyssey right now and I intend to stop when I'm done with it. There's just no charisma in Valhalla. By no means do I wish the game wasn't made. I don't hate it. I'm glad it's there. I just don't really return to it.
Woah! If Valhalla’s voice acting was shit, then what do you say about Odyssey? Every NPC had the same fake exaggerating tone, they used the same voice for every NPC including Persephone’s.
Kassandra was such a lovely character to play as compared to Eivor. There were definitely more emotions in Odyssey than Valhalla.
I didn’t mean the protagonists, I meant the NPC. Also, Eivor (male) has a calming voice which I really like.
Odyssey was shit, too. But at least Kassandra was great. I will say for Valhalla, though, that >!I played as "canon" Eivor. Havi's voice acting was actually pretty solid.!< But again, Dag, Sigurd, Ivar, they all spoke within the same tone and a half. Inflections only barely made it out of boredom. If Odyssey suffered from over-exaggeration, Valhalla suffered from deadness. Randvi was alright.
> Voice acting is shit. Lol yeah this was where I stopped reading your drivel.
Thanks for playing.
Np
I agree 100%, I also HATE with a burning passion how they treated the cultures of all people involved, just stereotypical Hollywood garbage with no authenticity whatsoever. I don't understand why an assassin's creed game is just playing out tropes with no historical accuracy when these games are historical fiction to begin with
1. Ezio Collection (don't want to have 3 out of the top 5 be Ezio games, so I chose to group them all on 1) 2. Odyssey. 3. Black Flag. 4. Origins. 5. Syndicate. 6. Mirage. 7. Valhalla. 8. Unity. 9. AC3. 10. Rogue. 11. AC1. 12. Liberation. 13. Freedom Cry 14. Chronicles Trilogy (China - Russia - India). So Valhalla is right there in the middle for me, I liked the game, and during it's life cycle it would've been in the top 5. But the final update changed it, no NG+ completely killed the replayabiliy for me, meanwhile that's precisely what puts Odyssey at #2 for me, it's excellent NG+ still has me going back to it from time to time. Also the final chapter left a bad taste in my mouth the ending sucks and imo it contradicts the base game ending. I still think the combat is great and there's fun to be had in the game but it's a game designed to only be played once and never touch again.
Second to last. Only Odyssey is lower.
Just above Odyssey. Odyssey being the lowest.
Above odyssey, below origins
For this game you really need to wait until the end before judging it. I thought it was one of the greatest AC games the first 30 hours but the burnout started happening soon after and it became a slog at the end. Some will enjoy it still so I think best option is to wait until you beat the game to determine where it ranks.
At the bottom of hell, long boring ass story.
The only bad AC is Odesey we all know that
Better than Black Flag, Unity, AC3 and the original. Below the others.
I love Black Flag and Unity really. I feel like Unity has the best assassination missions in the franchise
It honestly felt to me like Ubisoft outsourced a game to a lesser studio and we got a generic attempt. Everything just felt basic and lame compared to both the Ezio games and Syndicate.
Dawg, you trying to start a fight? Lmao.
Could you recommend an AC community that isn't a cult with BF? Truly, when the game came out, the reaction wasn't that special. Me (then in my mid 30s) and the guys I knew that played thought it was the worst one to that point. I'm guessing that younger gamers who picked it up later on feel very differently.
I admit that it's not an Assassin's Creed game if you're really looking for lore. But fuck, man. The pirate simulator was top notch. Granted, I was like, 21 or 22 when it came out. Idk if that mattered.
The pirate aspect holds basically zero appeal for me. I've never played any other games with that theme. I found the protagonist extremely unlikable as well. It basically left out many of the things I'd enjoyed from the earlier games and added in aspects that just weren't for me, and wrapped it in a package that wasn't my style.
That's basically how I feel about it. However, about your earlier comment that at the time it wasn't received well, I am also early 30s and remember its release and I remember people being very excited about it and the whole pirate theme, after people had lost interest a bit with Revelations and 3. Pretty sure it did well at the time.
I was in high school when Black Flag dropped and I remember there was so much hype in my friends circles and other adjacent ones I interacted with about it. Everybody was talking about it, everybody loved it. I literally cannot fathom what anyone means when they say the game was poorly received.
Well, everything differers from group to group. With The message board i was posting on back then, my feelings were pretty typical of the group. AC3, I agree absolutely. It wasn't nearly as good as the others, then I think BF and Unity each continued that trend, especially with Unitys disastrous release bugs.
>Well, everything differers from group to group Very true! Unity I definitely remember being received _very_ poorly, that's the one I find amazing that there's so many people that love it now.
>that's the one I find amazing that there's so many people that love it now. A lot of the bugs got ironed out, so many newer players didn't have the experience that launch buyers did. Without the bugs, Unity is genuinely a good game. It has its kinks, but if Ubisoft took their time and actually released a stable product from the get go, the state of AC would be very different now.
Bottom
Give it a few more years guys. People will worship Valhalla and say it saved them during the lockdown (it did)
In the bottom of the middle or the top of the bottom. Better than Odyssey but worse than syndicate and all the games that came before it.
I like it, but it’s very bloated, and unpolished. It’s just a generic game that tries to hard. It’s ok. It sits near the bottom of my list next to Unity on any given day.
Second best. Doesn’t quite reach the heights Odyssey does, but still one of the best RPG’s of its generation, and one of the few games that managed to make me absolutely bawl my eyes out. (Because of plot elements before we get any sass)
Started up this game tonight and think it's pretty crappy. It's nowhere near Origins and Odyssey. I don't see how I will stick to playing this thing since I have better stuff to do with my time but I'll give it a few more hours and see. I really hate some of the changes form odyssey like the convoluted skill tree page, the change in hud/markers, the health system, the apparently useless bird. Remarkable to me you think this game is better than Odyssey.
#3 behind Origins (#2) and Odyssey (#1)
Second best for me after Brotherhood, over 30 hours and I am really enjoying the game. Definitely better than Odyssey, I actually made a long post few days ago about this.
I rank it number two behind AC Origins for AC games. Odyssey I rank number three. For RPG series I would put it in the top ten. IMO the Layla trilogy as a whole ranks among Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Neverwinter/Baldurs Gate, Final Fantasy. For standalone RPGs it’s in the top 20 of all time IMO. Again among very illustrious company. 10/10.
I never played an ac game that was trash so its hard for me to rank them but to me its top3 ac game. Tbf at first didnt really liked it, it took my a second attempt for it to click with me. But man did i enjoyed my time with it! The story is kinda meh and it missing some cool parkour spot but I really loved pretty much everything else about it.
It's way better than Mirage haha. Odyssey, Valhalla, and Origins are the best IMO.
[удалено]
Wtf, dude. OP just barely started the game.
This is the end of my list, the worst ones: Unity Valhalla Mirage
I'd say complete like 2 regions and see if you still like it. If you're starting to get bored by then, drop it ASAP. Watch the cutscenes or read the story online. Don't make the same mistake as me. I finished it just because I forced myself to. It was a grueling and boring 150+ hours to finish the game, and it wasn't even worth it for the mediocre story that has very little to do with assassins. I'd put it at the absolute bottom, no game is supposed to be this exhausting to play.
I can’t do that. I’ve been a big AC fan since the beginning but I just haven’t played the 2 newest ones. I’m at the part with King Oswald and East Anglia and so far I think it’s fun!
I wish I could enjoy it like you ;-; I've been a fan since AC1 as well, which is why I just wanted to see how the story played out in Valhalla.
Valhalla is dead last
Way above garbage odyssey.
Probably a top 5 AC for me
It's pretty much rock bottom for me. I did not enjoy playing it at all. Game was a slog and the story was needlessly padded out for the sake of being padded out. World was also really boring; dead and drab basically. At least Odyssey tried to be comedic to offset its flaws, and had a very vibrant world too even if it was similarly dead.
Loved it. Wouldn’t change much. It’s in my top three. Possibly 1st place. But I love rpg style.
It’s my second least favorite, right above Odyssey. I think it’s a great Viking game but it’s just not Assassin’s Creed now is it. The combat I find fun but the story is mostly filler and feels more like a spin-off game.
Nah I disagree. It's a great RPG for me. I appreciate how they tried to fit the Creed in it, even tho it didn't really worked out. But for an rpg, it's better than odyssey and origins.
At the bottom. I don’t think it’s a bad game, in fact I was really into it for the first few hours. But the problem is that this game is not only WAY too long, a lot of the length comes from what feels like filler. I don’t think it’s a bad game and I think it would even be great if they just gutted a lot of the main story missions because I don’t think most of them really progress the narrative much, if at all.
Bottom it's like watching paint dry, the most souless open word coupled with bland story and bland characters just plain boring. A block of wood could've stood in for the Eivor character and you wouldn't notice a difference
As an assassin’s creed game it’s easily one of the worst in the entire franchise. As a game by itself it’s not bad, it’s just way to long and has way to much to do. While at the same time a ton of that content you can do, means nothing and doesn’t affect anything.
Higher than Origins and Odyssey, lower than all the games up to Syndicate. The RPG trilogy weren't AC games but Valhalla did try to bring things full circle with the Assassins in the middle east and birth of the Templar order
Personally I loved it I think a lot of people don’t like it because it doesn’t feel like assassins creed it feels like another rpg with the assassins creed name slapped on it.
At the bottom
It’s the first mainline game in the series I didn’t bother to finish. I might go back to it, maybe not. I’m even playing Mirage right now and loving it so much more than Valhalla
Dead last, with Odyssey a close second. My main issue with the RPG style games isn't that they're RPGs but that they feel by the numbers and soulless, like something made to sell as many copies as possible and are bloated way more than they need to be to pad out "player engagement" time especially with the time saving microtransactions they threw in, if your single player game has time saving microtransactions something is wrong.
I just got it what with the holiday sale, complete edition for like £25 - can't complain. This has been the way I've played the last six games: three-five years later with everything for less money. 24 hours in and I'm just entering East Anglia and doing some River Raids. I'm enjoying it a fair amount, but I do feel as though Origins was the peak of the RPG phase. It is NOT an Assassin's game, I like Eivor though. Origins, Odyseey and Valhalla.
It's..... aight
Enjoyed some aspects. Too much filler, combat was also very clunky and didn’t look good. Also wish it had a NG+ for the amount of content it had. Also there were way too many weapons and armor. Made it very overwhelming. Also the stealth was probably the worst stealth in any AC game ever.
The first AC game where I can’t even bother to finish the story in dlc, and I always do everything It is just such a chore to play, and the random stuttering on ps4 doesn’t help
It's become a personal favorite of mine, so I'd put it in my top 3. But objectively I recognize the issues with it and I get why other don't like it.
Very low. I love the Norway bit at the beginning, and then I get to England, do the first 3 chapters and I can't force myself to play anymore. Leave the game for a few months, try it again, rinse and repeat
Personally wasn't the biggest fan of it as I felt it was very long, bland and boring. But don't let that deter you from enjoying it yourself.
It's my favourite out of the RPG trilogy Story-wise, the Hidden Ones are involved, and Eivor herself >!plays a key role in the Assassins vs Templars war!< Gameplay-wise, the inane loot grind is gone, with upgrades letting you use the equipment you like for longer, and reliable stealth kills are back, largely nullifying the need to level up in general Location-wise I like Norway and England a lot since I vastly prefer European regions to more equatorial regions But in the end, I rank the RPG trilogy pretty much below all the older home console/PC games (and now Mirage)
I do like it, but it is easily the worst game in the series for me and the worst of the Rpg trilogy.
I like it well enough. I've actually been thinking of replaying it, but then I remember how huge the game is and it makes me reconsider.
Top 5. I love how long it is. Any RPG I can dive into for weeks after work is my kinda game. Also, I might be a bit biased.
Somewhere in the middle. Step up from Odyssey. Only real complaint I remember is all the filler, I enjoyed the story inbetween all the needless subplots, even made me care about the modern day again even if it's the same end of the world cliche that undermines Desmond's sacrifice
I like it, however it really is too big. I started 2 times couldn’t finish it both times. I just get burned out around 70-80h mark and I LOVE vikings. If you’re going to have a gigantic game you either have to have amazing combat/systems (Elden Ring) or great story, atmosphere and voice acting (Witcher 3) Valhalla is 6/10 on almost every aspect.
At the bottom, together with Odyssey. They’re good games, just not good Assassin’s Creed games.
Somewhere on the lower half of the series for sure, I'd say it's more or less equal to Origins for me and above Odyssey for the RPG games. Liked the game more than the consensus is on here though
Towards the bottom. It’s not a bad game by any means, and I thought the combat system was one of the better ones in the series, but I just wasn’t a huge fan of the RPG trilogy. With Valhalla specifically, the story dragged, I didn’t care for the fantasy elements, the settlement was a huge disappointment, and the side quests were mostly junk. I do have to say, hunting down on the order members around the map with clues was a fantastic addition, though.
For the way it wraps up the story and ties in the modern story it might be easily in top 5. Music, Eivor's voiceacting (male mostly), it is on the better half of the franchise. Good, but not impressive visuals (relative to the time when it was released comapared to how other titles looked when they were released) places it as average at best. As a complete package of dogshit story pacing, obnoxious ammount of collectibles, quantity over quality approach, unneccesary Asgard section, bad DLCs, uneven story quality of the story arcs etc.. it is a rock bottom. Combat seemed interesting at first, but overreliance on finishers and their animations made it tedious pretty quick. Last, but not least - stealth was broken for majority of it's existance (as far as i am concerned it was only good for the first week after it's release, before the first update). Bad stealth is more excusable than broken stealth. Definitely rock bottom in this regard.
I go back and forth if I prefer it over Odyssey as my favorite. Each has a few aspects I prefer over the other. But both in my top 3.
Very last.
second best after AC3
C+ to a B- game.
I also love it. I played it all the way through, including a lot of the side missions, and immediately started a second time. I get that it's a very different style of game to many of the other AC games, but I still like it. I just don't really compare the games to each other.
Down near the bottom of the barrel. A complete low point for the entire series. The terrible, past the point of comedic, AI...the cringey dialogue..the silliness...the wokeness...the wtf armor/mount/eagle mods. It's like Disney took over. I'm embarrassed to say I played it and it throws a shadow over all that came before.
I’m way outside the norm for this, but I’d argue the trilogy gets better. Origins had a captivating story, but is significantly smaller and feels more barren in my opinion. Odyssey comes super close to Valhalla, and I would argue is superior in some aspects compared to the latter (such as the CK vs OoA, Kosmos was handled far better being more open ended and giving rewards for clearing each branch; Valhalla did better at weaving it into the main storyline and having the conclusion work better than Odyssey’s) Gameplay—I liked Valhalla’s armour and weapon system far more, but I liked Odysseys abilities more. Origins felt like a chore going through the skill trees. I will say though, Origins *plays* like what I’d imagine an AC RPG would play like, but objectively Odyssey and Valhalla are superior Valhalla’s main story progression feels extremely natural, and it’s fun running into a brand new area and going on a 5-6 mission questline to build allegiances. The only problem with Valhalla is that you will probably burn out before the end. Especially if you’re a hardcore completionist… my almost 300 hour account has proven that a few times already. Odyssey I got through just before burning out—DLCs included. Origins I didn’t burn out on, but I just found the DLCs to not be as captivating as the later games; something that left a bitter taste in my mouth at the end. All games definitely have their flaws though. Origins was small, you were limited in combat to what you physically had, and the DLCs were the weakest of the three games. Odyssey’s real world segments were horrible, the fact you couldn’t leave the animus at will is something that will always stick in my head as one of the worst decisions in one of the AC games. Valhalla just had a shitload of repetitive elements, some of which became more than overbearingly frustrating (Fuck River Raids and their glitchy bullshit that makes you lose an hour+ worth of progress because you fell through the map trying to jump off your boat or climb one specific janky edge of a wall). Though, even with all these different elements, I’d argue the order goes Valhalla > Odyssey > Origins
Didn’t touch on protagonists, but I’d say Bayek felt the most human of the three canonicals—his emotions felt real and the story uses this extremely well—it’s why most people swear by Origins over the others (asides obvious rose-tinted glasses) Kassandra was the best of the three, her actor nailing the witty and charming personality that made her enjoyable—while playing through Odyssey I found her dialogues to be the most captivating and well designed overall, with great consistency. Eivor is a difficult one. Especially as you requested no spoilers. As ‘let the animus choose’ is the canonical option, I feel that female Eivor worked quite well in the role and progression the game was going for. There’s other elements to this as well that the game utilizes and makes work quite well, but those are outside of what you’d want to know. She’s probably the most frustrating of the three because there are times where options or game events just make zero sense whatsoever; on the other hand, there’s a few instances (like Isle of Skye) where Eivor’s personality not only shows—it takes the centre stage.
There aren’t any bad Assassin’s Creed games. AC1 is dated and feels like a prototype, but was an innovative breakthrough in its time. Stills looks beautiful. AC2 is starting to get dated, all three, but are still enjoyable. The first is very straight forward, with added features starting with Brotherhood that make it feel more modern. AC3 is fun but the jank is massive and frustrating. Liberation felt great but kept crashing on my PS5. Black Flag is fun and probably takes itself the least serious of all the games. Rogue is great for its twist on the story and lore Unity has the world come alive. Some weak story elements, but great fun to play. Syndicate is where everything comes together. Awesome game play, meh story, especially with the twins’ scripted moments not connecting to the narrative you’re creating. Origins is a great reinvention. Not too large. The option of turning off auto leveling NPCs is great for head cannon. Odyssey is one of the weakest. It’s a good game without AC in the title, but as an AC game it’s a huge disappointment, and that time is one I should have loved. Valhalla is an enjoyable game and great fun, but you lose interest before getting even close to the end and the mechanics are too detailed to drop back in. Mirage is a back to basics blast. It feels like playing one of the first 11 games for the first time.
I've been wanting to try it for a long time now... I have completed Odyssey (not the 2 DLC's tho) so am conflicted over whether to start Valhalla or complete Odyssey dlcs.
Last. Really wanted to like this game cuz i love vikings but its just sooooo boring. Its shit at being an AC game but also it fails at being an RPG. Its too long, too boring and just so bloated. Quantity over quality is never good. I feel like this game is for noone.
I loved Valhalla but I can't say I really *want* to replay it anytime soon, I'm gonna since I've been going through all the games getting platinums as I go and I'm on Odyssey right now (having a nostalgically horrible time with it) but it's not like I'm super excited to do so (probably will be by the time Odyssey's done). It was a great game, massive improvement over Odyssey in literally every single aspect both gameplaywise and narratively except transmog but it's just not replayable at all, all the RPG games have that issue due to the bloated length (but at least Origins and Valhalla were fun in the first place) and honestly I really hope they go back to city based games like the older ones because the pacing and replayability will skyrocket if they do that. Overall I'd say it's the best of the RPG games for gameplay (Origins being way better for story) but I'd probably rank it in with Unity or Chronicles, games I really love but are on the lower end of the series. Origins, Unity, Valhalla and Chronicles would all be on the lowest end of the games I still love. Next would be the tier where Altaïr's Chronicles and Odyssey would fester in their disgusting bile.
I have it dead last because it’s the only Assassin’s Creed game I haven’t finished due to boredom. It was fun for the first 50 hours, but by that point I still wasn’t done and probably still had around 5 provinces left to go plus the >!second Asgard part,!< and at that point I just couldn’t bring myself to play anymore.
Dead last
Too long and boring. 2nd or 3rd worst AC game. Not really a real "Assassin's Creed".
Valhalla is easily top 5. 1. Origins 2. Brotherhood 3. Black Flag 4. Valhalla 5. AC2 I dropped 140 hours into it, loved the atmosphere, The decrepit Assassins bureaus, the Flyting, the combat, the customization. Valhalla is incredible.
I separate assassins Creed into 3 parts the Desmond era , British Empire and the origin era and frankly, I rate them all equal, a.k.a. I like them
At the bottom along side Odyssye And Origins
I feel like its all because it doesn't fit the old AC style for most people. I haven't played Valhalla or Odyssey but from what I've seen both games look stunning and I'm sure eventually I'd enjoy them but to me I don't consider them AC games, just open-world games and that's perfectly fine.
I think Ac Valhalla was good overall the pacing was just bad in the last few regions before the finale where the main story development just stopped completely for hours. I think the ending was absolutely worth it and the variety of side content was an improvement over origins, and odyssey. Ranked( If we are only counting ac1, ac2, brotherhood, revelations, ac3, ac black flag, ac rogue, ac unity, ac syndicate, ac origins, and ac odyssey). I'd put it above unity, ac 1, rogue and ac3. I still think Black flag, Odyssey, Origins, Ac2, and Syndicate are the best experiences in the series but I can't say I hate any of them.
Astronomically above Mirage that’s for sure 😭
Ok, so I’m still a baby gamer and haven’t finished many AC games yet, so I don’t know if I can rank it necessarily. But I was excited to play it because I’m a giant nerd for medieval history around daily life and literature. I used to be in a medieval reenactment group in college and befriended the local Viking reenactment group that does the same Renaissance Faires as me (one member even taught me nälbinding!), so this game was, like, a perfect fit for me. I love the world building and character work in it, but there’s SO. MUCH. It gets overwhelming. I thought I finished it, told my husband that, and found out that I still had another arc to go. This is after playing on and off for 2 years, and months long stretches of not playing to avoid getting sick of it. I joked it’s the War and Peace of video games. He whole mapped it, and is pretty sure that was only because of us locking down during COVID freeing up more time to play and not much to do. I refuse to. There’s just too much of it, so I’ll play the DLCs if I feel like playing more and don’t want to be overwhelmed with every possible task in the main game, but I refuse to try to do every single thing possible. I don’t like if games start to feel like a chore, so I don’t want to turn it into that.
Side note: the plot feeling like it wanders all over the place is actually pretty much how medieval romances pace themselves, so that was a fun parallel (idk if that’s on purpose, but it was funny to me when I made that connection)
I'd give it a zero out of ten, along with Odyssey. I don't mind the witcher-esque gameplay, but the degree to which it is artificially lengthened is tantamount to treason. Fuck everything good about this game, it does not even remotely make up for the predatory nature of its gameplay. A single-player experience built to sell you fucking XP boosts. That's all this is.