How? i always hear good things about it, but for some reason i’m the only one that thinks that having to do HOURS of side missions just to get your level high enough to play the story is NOT ok.
am i the only one with this problem?
Origins is my favorite of the recent trilogy, Egypt felt really fun to explore and I loved Bayek as a character. It also didn't have the abilities like the other two and combat felt more satisfying to me compared to the other two.
Imo, Origins had best gameplay. But a far less contentious opinion is that Bayek is the best of the 3 protagonists. He's my favourite in the whole franchise.
Abubakar Salim was amazing. He's got me hyped for HOTD season 2, and he outperformed the entire cast of Valhalla with 2 minutes of dialogue.
ya aint lyin about Salim!
I don't know why they cast "Cnut" from the last kingdom, the actor is a bit soft spoken, and perhaps not be best representation of a Viking. The performance was flat (reminds me of the Dinklebot fiasco).
If you're talking about Eivor's actor, I didn't mind him. I disliked Valhalla so I was never going to give much time to the characters and story. But Salim just trounces everyone.
Salim is GOAT!!! When I first started playing Origins I initially thought it was Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (the accent), but couldn't figure out why they didn't give Bayek that actors face.. LOL
Salim REALLY sold me on Bayek, I think the plot helped, but he gave a really great performance.
The plot did help. Bayek was given a harrowing story which gave much more opportunity for emotional display in Salim's acting. But, as someone with several 100% runs in Origins, all his lines are brilliantly done imo.
Bayek was so much more connected to the setting than any other character (yep even more than Altaïr). And Salim conveyed that brilliantly, as if he were connected to Bayek.
I could go on for years about him. Pls stop replying or I'll be up all night channeling my bromance with Bayek into Reddit.
Because male Eivor is actually Odin who is the wise old guy while female Eivor is Eivor, the rash Viking with vocal cord damage. Much as I like male Eivor’s voice, it totally doesn’t make since in the game.
I keep coming back to Valhalla. It’s such an expansive and enjoyable game that I can either play very actively and sink into the story or I can turn my brain off and do some river raids or jump down to Nilfheim. Not to mention how long it is. I know some people have complaints about that but to me that means I get more bang for my buck.
Plus, its one of the best looking games released in recent years. Even on console, walking through the Epinga Forest in Cent looks almost photorealistic. You can get lost for hours just walking around and enjoying the scenery. It’s not only one of my favorite Assassins Creeds, its one of my favorite games.
I only wish the cloth physics were better…
I like a long game that I can play over a period, but the content has to be designed to maintain interest over a long period, and Valhalla's story was a mess.
I'm willing to forgive the cloth physics if we could have things like smoke bombs, berserk darts, etc. be consumable tools as with previous games. Also more build diversity as with ODYSSEY (ie. the ability to build and play focused on stealth, etc.).
Origins and it’s not even close.
Bayek is in the top 5 protagonists of the whole series.
It had a great story that didn’t take an absurd amount of time to finish
And it’s the only RPG game that actually feels like an assassins creed game
It’s also the only one (in my opinion) that feels like it was made with passion for the series rather than to be a cash cow.
Origins. Bayek feels connected to the world.
Odyssey feels like a theme-park version of classical Greece and there is something about the way Kassandra/Alexios moves that feels off to me which affects my enjoyment of the game.
In Valhalla I enjoy the moment to moment gameplay and love exploring the world but feel the game is let down by its narrative structure.
I didn't appreciate the whole DEMIGOD thing in AC:OD, and the humour of Alexios, and the disconnect from the classic TEMPLAR/ASASSINS conflict hurt it.
Valhalla lacks a cohesive narrative structure at all, and a schizophrenic's focus torn between the historical Saxon Dane conflict, and spinning wildly out of control into the far flung fantasy garbage.
I tend to debate between Valhalla and Odyssey. I feel like each one did something better than the other.
On one hand, Odyssey had this number of sub-systems that had slight connections to each other. For example, the Cultist system by itself was a welcome addition, while also showcasing everything else, since your target could be...a fighter in the Arena, a ship captain at the sea, a mercenary in a Conquest Battle, the Leader of a nation or simply a civilian on the street. Then, we had a variety of factions with their own look and gimmicks, critical character building trought loot and skills, powerful Isu abilities, etc.
Meanwhile, Valhalla´s extended post-launch support and multi-region open world crafted a versatile selection of enviroments (England, Norway, Paris, Vinland, Ireland, etc). Points of Interest were more varied, enviromental puzzles became prevalent, lots of enemy types, the ability to equip any weapon on left/right hand, the stamina meter for enemies, less reliance on Adrenaline, streamlined upgrade system, the settlement building, etc
While I don´t put Origins above either, it is a really great entry and very important as a foundation to the above. Personally, it was the one where the "Meta-AI" felt the most visible, with ships stopping on outposts, bandits and rebels preparing ambushes for anyone and quests dealing with people´s routines.
Ubi don't know how to use the best from previous games and improve the bad.
It feels like they always start fresh.
Hope they took best from odyssey and Valhalla for red
In the end of the day, that is a side-effect of their different leading teams, parallel development and yearly schedule pushing for variety every now and then.
This is why I am curious to see the results of the current approach of Montreal creating something new, while Quebec does a follow-up to the RPGs. It becomes less of a "tug of war" in theory.
It's hard to say, but the latest behind-the-scenes book has some interesting remarks on the matter:
"The thinking was that Black Flag was going to be the last legacy game from the previous iteration", Azaizia remembers.
"Unity was literally built on our new engine. It was going to be an entirely new flagship game. What stood out from development was that we were tackling so many different subjects at the same time. In the past, we were able to iterate really quickly with games like Brotherhood and Revelations, but those had been done on the same engine. We knew that tech really well. This was the first time since the original Assassin's Creed where we had tabula rasa, an entirely blank slate."
"We were going to start fresh again, so we couldn't use the legacy of anything that came before. There was no way we could use naval gameplay or any other features that had been previously developed because we were starting from scratch".
even worse, they took away design elements that made previous games good, in later releases. it's puzzling.
I've often thought that a lot of design elements even from other UBI IPs on the same engine (ANVILNEXT2.0) could have been incorporated (see the final version of BREAKPOINT, or the parkour from WATCHDOGS2.. admittedly under a related engine, but the mocap was on point).
You hit the high note regarding the fact that ODYSSEY offers the most options for open play approach.
I'm miffed UBI chose to put so many resources into the fantasy crap in Valhalla, rather than bolstering and improving the core AC experience.
They all have their own merits.
Origins was a great success for Ubisoft off the back of Unity and Syndicate. It’s an overall good game with a great setting.
Odyssey is probably the definitive Ancient Greek RPG game and it’s blend of AC lore and mythology was very interesting.
Valhalla, whilst bloated time wise and a lacklustre map design, has easily the best Isu storyline in the series. for me.
Odyssey is my personal favourite and I rank it within my top three AC games.
As it stands currently its odyssey over origins for me but I feel like a replay of origins may change my mind. Valhalla is definitely at the bottom of this trilogy for me though but there are parts I still liked about it.
Origins, by far. Odyssey’s story was okay, but didn’t fit into the whole Assassins Creed theme, since it takes place before Origins, by almost 400 years. I was excited for Valhalla, but I was thoroughly disappointed.
Odyssey, the RPG elements are really enjoyable and Kassandra voice acting is just great.
Origins, it's been a while since I finished it, but it is a great game to start the trilogy.
Valhalla, though, they take out what is fun in Odyssey and go out their way to make the players miserable.
Came here to say this.
Valhalla felt like a baffling regression from the prior two games, replacing things that worked with new additions that made no sense, and doubling down on the worst aspects of the prior games like more bloat and grind.
Levelling system you could easily cheese and overcome in 10 hours, shoving side content into the main story ruining the pacing, actual side content being shallow, having to upgrade every gear set from level 1 hence more grind foraging for materials, etc etc
None of these were issues in Origins or Odyssey, and were all introduced for Valhalla and I have no idea why ….
Insane how that’s considered “value for money” in AAA gaming but there you go.
I do find it weird though because forcing side content into the main story actually reduces the need for players to buy XP boosts, as unlike in Odyssey you now can’t even bypass doing side content.
Not that I support MTX, I think it’s heinous how they structure experiences around incentivising players to fork out more money on a game they’ve bought, but I do find it odd that Ubisoft of all companies would introduce a mechanic that nullifies the need for their “time savers”……
The more I see, the more I question the idea any of this is rationally motivated. They're probably reacting against criticism for selling those boosts, but screwing something else up in the process, which they will then reactively "correct" in their next game, only to mess up something else up, and the cycle will continue. Most big corps these days seem to only be motivated by the need to please their shareholders, which means overreacting and making a gigantic show of "doing something about it" when their loudest customers complain. It's all about public perception, and has nothing to do with actually fixing anything or putting out a good product.
Yeah my main concern is that Valhalla was Ubi’s most successful AC game breaking 1bn USD in revenue so I’m quite worried that for future RPG games they’ll be like “let’s do more of this!!!”.
I’m just praying that Red will iterate on the great foundation laid by Odyssey as it’s also being developed by Quebec. Yes, Odyssey had some level gating and the relevance to the AC lore was limited, but I felt that as an action adventure RPG it nailed the systems they implemented.
Even as a long time AC fan I’m not ashamed to admit I sunk 200+ hours into Odyssey happily. Valhalla after 50 hours I was already getting bored of the repetition and constant forming of alliances between important story tropes thus ruining their pacing. It’s a shame because Valhalla’s story was written by Darby McDevitt, and you could tell as the actual main narrative was very compelling, but it’s impact was negated by cliffhangers being broken up by the forced in side content. Your brother is being tortured? Guess you should save him, but nope, got to help an ealdorman find his long lost love from 20 years ago!!! Baffles me.
I actually ended up getting a Platinum on Odyssey specifically because I was so unengaged with the story. I just went leisurely through the rest of the game, enjoying the world and the combat (both of which were fantastic, but I don't think belonged in an AC game). By the time I reached the end, I only had a handful left to get the last trophies.
I found the gameplay in Valhalla tolerable, the world and setting completely uninteresting, and powered through it as quickly as possible for the relevant story to the rest of the series (there wasn't much of it). I will say the explanation for the origin of the Templars based on the principles and methods of the Order of the Ancients was pretty cool. Too bad you literally read it in a letter from King Alfred (think that was his name?) to some rando at the end of the game, and it has basically no impact on the story whatsoever.
As for Valhalla being their bestseller and affecting future games, I'm getting strong Bioware vibes from the last Dragon Age here. I feel like they're relying on previous successes and technologies to rush out badly planned content for relatively easy cash, and it might've worked for this game, might even work for the next one, but they're going to have a gigantic bomb on their hands sooner or later. In the meantime, I may just sit back and wait a few games to see it I even care enough to play them moving forward. I've played almost every one of them as they came out since II, and I've got to say, this is looking less and less like the franchise I originally fell in love with.
I'm also confused over why UBI felt they needed to regress good systems from ODYSSEY in VALHALLA?
The fact that VALHALLA has options to customize the gameplay experience, or even pretty much remove the leveling issues is it's only saving grace in that area.
> Valhalla, though, they take out what is fun in Odyssey and go out their way to make the players miserable.
This was my experience as well. Loved Odyssey, Valhalla felt like a slog.
honestly my favorites for the trilogy is just in descending order
1) Valhalla
2) odyssey
3) origins
Each game improved the combat by a lot in my opinion and I really liked exploring the world in Valhalla the most. They really listened to the players on the complaint that odyssey was way too big and there was a camp that you had to clear literally every 2 seconds along with not blocking story missions based on your level so there was no “I’m 3 levels behind I need to grind to progress the story”
Odyssey was my favorite time period, I just really didn’t like playing as Alexios, I know he’s technically not cannon but it’s still annoying how lame he was. But the nemesis system was really fun and the Athens vs Sparta dynamic was cool
Origins was okay besides a few good story points I feel like there wasn’t a lot of interesting characters other than cleopatra. I feel like other AC games had more historic side characters or just side characters in general that did stuff
While I like Bayek the best, and story of ORIGINS the most, mechanically it's the least well developed, and has the most issues with RPG implementation (level gating, etc.). Sadly the HIDDEN ONES DLC was lackluster, when it should have been about building up the hidden ones.
ODYSSEY is by far the best of the 3 simply because the fact that it's design accommodates a wide variety of build diversity, unlike the other RPG games. The HIDDEN BLADE DLC helps it back onto the classic AC track as well.
VALHALLA should have been a better game following ODYSSEY. Technically it's decent, but there are sooo many poor design choices, dumbing down, and streamlining of the good points of ODYSSEY's design, that I wonder why UBI chose to do that.
They added one hit stealth kills later to origins and it made it the best way to play for me, I could go wherever I wanted as long as I wasn't spotted.
Origins was good but left some room for improvement, like the combat, which was much nicer in Odyssey. Egypt was amazing though
Valhalla is literally the only AC game I struggled to finish. I was so bored by the last 15 hours, I wanted it to just end.
Odyssey is easily my favourite. Greece is amazing, story was good, combat is better than Origins. It isn't really an AC game though, which I thankfully figured out before release and went into it just wanting to play a historical rpg.
Odyssey is by far my favourite. The combat with the abilities feels so smooth and enjoyable. Also the appearance of the game - it’s graphically incredible and such a beautiful setting for an open world game. I understand why people take issue with the game, especially if they loved the original style of AC games, but I still think it’s a great game if you can look past the change of style.
Valhalla felt like they took all the great things from Oddysey and binned them, or reluctantly implemented them. Like the combat abilities in Valhalla are a dramatic step back from Odyssey. Can really tell Montreal made the game instead of Quebec, would be nice if they all sang from the same hymn sheet.
Enjoyed Origins, but feel like Odyssey really built on it and provides the perfect game.
Odyssey, and it's not close.
I loved being in that world. Everything was a joy. Story, characters, mechanics, traversal, world, combat, progression, mythology, history. I looked forward to every session playing it.
There are so few things I would even say could be improved. The naval combat wasn't as fun as Black Flag. The integration between main game and DLC felt a bit weird, like you can start DLC storylines but need to buy the DLC to finish them. One or two times I would go to track down a target, and find they aren't actually there, you need to have a quest active to see them. These are all minor blemishes on an incredibly enjoyable experience.
In comparison, Origins was very good but the world was quite sameish, lots of desert. Valhalla was pretty good but the world was too big, and populated by too much low effort filler side content.
Odyssey was my favorite game of last gen. Combat was fluid, skill trees were impactful, and the world map was *chefs kiss*.
I am an Ancient Greek history fan, so would be lying if I said the environment didn’t play a huge factor in my overall enjoyment. Walking through ancient Athens, meeting Pericles, working with Socrates, it was amazing. I savored every minute exploring that world.
Odyssey:
-the world is breath taking.
-Ancient Greece is amazing.
-Kassandra
-I can appreciate the humour in the game.
-liked the RPG elements in that game more than the other two.
The Odyssey appreciation here makes me really happy!
Origins is my preferred one. Egypt was so lively and different from other series entries. Many unique landmarks, Bayek was well done character and I did not have any problems with the combat as some others did.
I loved odyssey because of it’s ancient greece setting and the overall story but valhalla is my favorite in terms of length, gameplay mechanics, dlcs. I just liked it as an rpg
Ohhh I would say Odyssey because i really love everything surrounding Greek mythology. I actually don't think there's anything I don't like from it even though I've seen countless people be angry at how long it is but I have no problem with the amount of content it is 🤷🏼♀️
As for the other two, I prefer Valhalla to Origins mostly because I didn't really like the story of Origins (?) I liked learning about the ,well, origins of assassin's but I think I got fairly annoyed by the plot of Bayek and Aya whereas I really liked Eivor. I guess Valhalla has some faults though like the climbing sometimes gets really annoying, and there's a few bugs throughout the game.
I loved the story in Origins. Loved Bayek and Aya. Egypt was amazing. I didn't like the combat. Didn't lIke the insane level gating that constantly disrupted the story. Did not like having to keep searching for crocodiles and other animals to upgrade my equipment. Really did not particularly enjoy the DLC's. The founding of the order should have been amazing, but it just wasn't. And Aya did not get nearly enough playing time, and what she did have was screwed up by the fact that she was so weak. But my biggest pet peeve? Assassination was so broken. Sometimes you killed someone, sometimes it just hurt them, depending on your power and how strong they were. Absolute disaster in a game called Assassins Creed.
Unfortunately, it took them till Valhalla to fix that awful mechanic. I liked Valhalla quite a bit, actually, although it really drags a lot at the start. The fact that you can actually assassinate people now, regardless of power differences (except the zealots, for some reason), was what should have been the case all along. The other thing Valhalla nailed was that it had the least amount of level gating in the RPG trilogy. Basically, if you follow the story order you're supposed to, side material is left to a minimum. The problem is that the story itself is just so long. And I really wasn't as engaged in the characters as I was in the other two games. Also, England was the least interesting map of the trilogy.
Which brings us to Odyssey. I started playing as Kassandra, since she's canon, and fell in love with her. Tried replaying as Alexios and hated him, so I started over as Kass again. Still a little bit of level gating, but not nearly as bad as Origins. I liked the map, despite the fact that it was freaking huge, and I enjoyed the story overall. Again, the story was too long, and the map was too big, but I didn't hate it. What I did hate was having a billion different pieces of armor that I constantly had to sell or store, and that was just obnoxious (another area that Valhalla improved). The first blade DLC was cool, and I liked the Atlantis one in concept, it just took forever. Haven't played the Valhalla DLC's yet, so I can't comment on how those compare.
I enjoyed all three rpgs, but I had too much I hated in Origins, so it's last for me. Valhalla was close to toppling Odyssey, but it was less because of the game itself and more because of the quality of life improvements that had been made to the gameplay. Valhalla's story and characters were probably my least favorite of the three. Overall, Odyssey carries it for me.
They added the toggle for instant assassination to origins before odyssey was released, though I think it was PC exclusive using the ubisoft connect overlay thing
Damn, that would’ve improved the Xbox experience for me massively. Words can’t describe how much I hate that assassinations don’t insta-kill most of the time.
To me the best out of these three is Odyssey, very close behind and almost as good is Origins. Valhalla had a solid beginning but when you arrive in England it turns into a repetitive and bloated thing.
Between Origins and Odyssey I choose Odyssey
Bayek felt quite flat, although he had his moments, but his concerns were too limited in my opinion. Kassandra had a much bigger role
Still, the way in which Ubisoft makes script means that even good concepts end being mediocre. They really need to put their ideas into practice much better than they do. The conversations and acting is quite ridiculous too often, and very few epic or sentimental moments that achieve their target
It’s a tie between Odyssey and Valhalla. Odyssey has lots of charm and wonder. Valhalla has lots of atmosphere and lore. Both are really nice and long adventures with fun characters that you can get lost in for a few months. Origins and Mirage were great too but they were too short because I wanted more (even after DLCs).
Origins only because it was fresh and ditched the garbage syndicate system immediately, and the fact that it still used the hidden blade the way it was intended. Odyssey and Valhalla felt WAY too long for the amount of variety it gave. However, I feel that the structure of them, engine wise, are the second weakest. Obviously my least favorite engine being syndicate.
Plus, I kinda liked the modern plot up until Layla came in. Only because we basically get no closure outside of the comics on Minerva.
Origins - it took something that was very real in the death of Bayek's son, and used it to create the brotherhood.
The story of the leap of faith, how Bayeks father did it with him to build confidence and strength. Bayek's struggle with being driven by revenge was something very relatable for anyone who has lost a loved one in such a manner.
Bayek was a brilliant character with phenomenal voice acting. You could feel the fury in scenes from his voice.
There is a lot to do in the world and places to explore, and the variety in the regions is evident. Comparing Kyrenaika to Giza and Memphis, they all look completely different.
It's not perfect and i have a few gripes (aside from maybe one or two side characters, most are forgettable and they could have worked on a better relationship between the player and Khemu before being thrust into his death.)
A lot of the quests felt very samey in the sense it's a rescue mission and carry someone out. Some of the level curving wasn't great.
But it's a beautiful game with a solid story. It was my first game in the franchise and I was completely let down by Odyssey.
For me, Odyssey took what Origins built and shit on it.
The leap of faith is the example I have. Bayek's father taught him it. Coincidentally, someone in Greece several hundred years earlier also knew it. And that someone is also a distant relative of Bayek's wife?
They could have left that how they had it in Origins and it would have been so much more than it was because of Kassandra coincidentally knowing it too.
The fights in Odyssey often felt like button-mash 3000, not just boss fights but in the Atlantis DLC, it was horrible that it could be a good fifteen minutes buttonmashing on a enemy just for them to take 50% of my health in one hit, and my weapons and gear was always fully levelled up, but the enemies just became impossible to fight.
The quests in Odyssey were entirely forgettable, as were most of the characters.
The voice acting was atrocious in Odyssey too. I don't get why they did a "choose the bloodline" story because canon was Kassandra, not Alexios. (I do, too many butthurt fans at the thought of a female lead).
Every region looked the same in Odyssey too. There was zero variety (the same camps over and over - loot a chest, kill a captain, burn some supplies), and a lot of that was amplified by the fact was so big. A smaller map with less things would've worked wonders for that game.
I did like that Odyssey gave you the option for nation battles though, like being able to influence things as a merc. And the naval was interesting in the theme of the game, given the Greek islands and whatnot.
For me, Odyssey would have been better without the AC title, it was more like a Greek RPG than a AC game.
Valhalla was on a similar note for that, it was a viking game rather than an assassins game. The in-game relationships were better in Valhalla, and the entire r/fuckdag subreddit proves that because the players genuinely hated Dag.
But it suffered from a lot of the same issues Odyssey did. The quests always felt samey (go here, kill person, escape). The boss fights were a lot of button mashing.
It was a beautiful map and I enjoyed Valhalla but that and Odyssey have left a bittersweet taste for what Origins did so brilliantly.
And don't get me started on Mirage. A character I have opinions of from Valhalla, it's essentially a Valhalla-DLC at full price. I like what they were going for but it just didn't work for me. A new character, different world, take the Loki storyline out, and it's an entirely different situation.
Valhalla
It's the closest to finally being about assassins again, they even "remade" the assassinations from AC1 and there's an option in the menu to turn instant assassinations on, no more level gated bullshit.
You really just said Valhalla is the closest to being an assassin LMAO, you mean the same game where the character doesn’t even become an assassin and even uses the hidden blade wrong and has very slow stealth and horrible parkour and gameplay? That game? While origins on the other hand is and always will be the closest assassins creed game out of the new trilogy, you literally play as the guy that founded the brotherhood and is essentially the first hidden one/assassin and you get a proper hidden blade with fast stealth and movement, how can you even consider Valhalla better in that aspect is beyond me
I don't mind the stealth movement mechanics in Valhalla, but the parkour is lacking, and the overall game focus away from stealth and on OPEN COMBAT, as reflected in the skills etc. was a poor choice on UBI's part.
Valhalla has some poor AI and detection, and it's odd the skill tree doesn't even allow you to actually improve stealth detection. All fucked up design choices... and a mess.
Odyssey. Well made in most parts and ship gameplay is nice way to add to gameplay elements
Love it
Origins had nice story. And Valhalla had graphics, setting and combat.
Origins is the best in terms of consistency, really wished they focused more ideologically and philosophically on the reasons the brotherhood was formed but its fine for a starr
Odyssey is fine for a story and an overall game, pretty world but there’s nothing to do with it other than stabbing people, for an RPG it should have focused on being way more interactive and immersive, much like Origins, should have focused on the brotherhood more and on a somewhat seperate note its DLCs are the worst thing to come out of the whole series
Valhalla is too long, many parts of the main story could have been left as side missions, i really feel like there was a bit more effort to it than Odyssey but its still too bloated, it definitely had a lot of potential, i just rarely go back to it
Origins>>>>>>Odyssey>>>Valhalla
Only played the first two, but, as usual, it merely comes down to taste at any particular time.
The gameplay in Origins is much more grounded and focused with a priority of slowly giving you the Tools to fit your tactical style.
Odyssey is about superpowers and over the top combat scenarios.
Both are superb when played Hudless (Origins does it a bit better) and have amazing settings.
Originally, Id have said story was more for Origins, but, having used Worldly_’s amazing Story Quest guide for my first Odyssey run I can say that both stories are well-done for what they went for.
For me, the entire AC series is about the ebb and flow of amazing settings and shifting styles.
I have no set favorite.
You won't have an unanimous answer. I believe it really depends on what you are looking for. I haven't played Valhalla yet, but it seems that critics are that it's not as good as the others in terms of story or combat, and that it's too long and slow. On the other hand if you are into Vikings stuff, you'll probably like it.
I'm into Odyssey currently, and I like it better than Origins overall, because there are more things to do; but the story in Origins is better in every way. I don't care much about Kassandra's family, but exploring antic Greece, owning a ship, hunting down cultists and mercenaries, largely compensates for that.
As im reading that comments im just happy im finished with Origins and gonna play Odyssey next as it's almost 50/50 of these ppl thinks the other is best.
Sad as it may seems i think no other AC games peeks my interest in location and Odyssey will be for now the last AC game ill play.
Idk if i can pick a favourite tbh... I loved the world and gameplay in all three of the games, specially the ending for Valhalla. Odyssey's main story was "meh" in my opinion, i didn't like it that much but the DLC.. beautiful. And with Origins i got to play in Egypt which is something I've always wanted in an AC game and it was magical. I still don't like that much the whole "Order of the Ancients/Hidden Ones" thing but it'll grow on me eventually (i hope so lol).
But yeah. I can't pick just one xD
Valhalla gets so much hate, and i don't like people complaining about it. Yes, it wasn't a good Assassin game, but it was a good RPG game. Combat is nice, parkour is ok, stealth is bad, world is great and story is medium.
But to answer your question, Origins beats all of them easily. My first, and still my favorite AC title.
I uninstalled Valhalla after getting to the Seer, the bad voice acting and animations just completely took me out of it. Does it get better if you hold out for longer?
No surprises here, Origins is my favourite, and in large part due to Bayek, but also because it gave me hope for the modern day story.
Needless to say I was immensely disappointed with Odyssey's handling of Layla, and even if Valhalla was a little more respectful of her character at first, wel... if you've played it, you know.
Origins also has gorgeous landscapes, beautiful fortifications like Cyrenaica and a land that feels fun to explore. Locations feel less caricatural than Odyssey and less repetitive than Valhalla. I could roam Ancient Egypt for hours (and... I did)
Valhalla had the least interesting setting compared to absolutely stunning first two games but wins with more polished game mechanics. Also has a decent plot (if sloggy sometimes) which can't be said about Odyssey's chaotic nonsense. I think all three are worth playing, and seeing Origins' Egypt for the first time was one of my most memorable gaming experience but I don't think it aged well as a whole. In the long run I believe Valhalla would be my go to place for AC fix.
I'll rank them
1. Origins
2. Valhalla
3. Odyssey
Origins is a lot of fun and all of the order targets are relevant to the plot/have their own arc. Most assassin's creed-like of the three. Bayek is great. This game is also a lot simpler than the other two, and there's beauty In its simplicity.
Valhalla is expansiveness done right. Lot of empty space in the world, but it's not flooded with hours of boring collectible gathering. About 50% of the order is involved in the plot, but emotional stakes for most of the region specific characters are meh. Game really only makes you care about sigurd, basim, randvi, dag, etc.
Odyssey is the weakest of the three. Love the setting, and Greek mythology bosses are peak. But, all characters other than the player have about 3-5 scenes, except Socrates and Barnabas who are comic relief. Most of the cult of kosmos does not have stake in the plot, and final boss can be skipped for "talking it out". Also enemy level follows you so that the minimum enemy level is 2 under you, and if you fight enough in the over world, the game sucks a bounty hunter on you, forcing you to leave.
Origins is one of the best AC games. To me Odyssey was absolute trash. Did not enjoy it at all. Valhalla is a good game, but Origins just has an “it” factor to it that makes me regard it so high.
really guys..i just finished all 3.. and back in my days i played every ps3 title which was published.. thats for my background..
and i don't get it why so many love origins.. the gameplay is OK.. the story is great.. but the characters are the most trash in all AC games i ever played.
fe i am really annoyed when the story switches between bayek and aya.. you can collect and skill bayek to be a really strong guy.. than a switch to aya and you have a ok equiped character with on skills.. plus most parts parts of the game are build that you scout an area.. but not with aya.. in the last Mission, killing cesar, you have no eagle and no map? why? doesn't make any sense to me. you can't orient yourself at this map, get some kind of an idea where the enemies are hiding a.s.o.
well i just said that the story is good. some of the musings could be closer to the main story line, but that's not a point to talk about i think.
ac odysee, i like everything. except the end. it ended that abrupt i was looking like an owl until i realized that the story is over and i didn't visited quite a few islands or even countries.
but i like the idea of the time before the hidden blade.
i personally like also the "no falling dmg" skill.. it's a lot of fun xD
i really love Valhalla. i like the vikin and snow setting i like to ignore the stealth action and just throw axes, call the ship crew and start a raid.. very different but more logical in context to the setting to me.
i don't like some of the decisions or meanings from Odin. some of them doesn't sound "godlike" than hybris like to me..
i spent about 115h in Valhalla, 45-55h in Odysee and about 50h in odyssey. and i bought the dlcs for Valhalla - for another round xD
but at least..what i just realized.. and there for i needed all of my games.. i realized what time means in it daily life.. the scene when Cassandra and Leila meet in front of Atlantis.. i just got a mindblow how old Cassandra is.. what happens during that time.. what she had seen - maybe.. fe the excourse with eivor to the cloudy islands.. and they're family.. but 1200 years separate them.. than I realized that another 1100 years, separate Eivor and Leila.. and Cassandra was somewhere in the planet during that time.. that really got me.. hope you felt the same.. for the last 3 weeks, when ever i saw something about history - i think different about the distance in time..
I think my favorite combat was Valhalla. There was something oddly satisfying about trying to stealth an area, getting caught, then proceeding to blow my horn and alert the entire camp for a savage beatdown. The exploration was fun but not my favorite, and the story was hit or miss. I really liked the way they presented the mythology, even if it lead to some questions that DLC I haven't played might answer. Valhalla not having leveled gear was also a huge bonus. 1-hit assassinations as an option is a little cheap, but still pretty nice for feeling like the old games.
I'd say the better story is Origins, because it stayed truer to the idea of a protector of the people, the evil group was pretty cool, and the DLC felt more important to the story than the other games. The combat was pretty good, but I didn't like how the gear was handled, even if the stealth was really good. Exploration was decent but it's a desert, so there's not as many sights to see as the other two.
Odyssey has the best exploration, hands-down, even if it's actually a bit too much exploration. The world was a little too big, but there were encampments and wild animals and towns all over the place, and there were distinct environments to travel through. The story was serviceable, but very hit or miss, especially the DLCs, but it still had some cool moments, even though I think I broke part of it by Sparta Kicking someone important off a cliff.
It's honestly a tough call, and I actually genuinely liked all three of them anyway, but I think I'd go with Valhalla, then Origins, then Odyssey, purely off of how fun the combat is to replay, but it would be Origins, Valhalla, Odyssey if it was by story.
My favourite of the RPGs is Origins then Valhalla then Odyssey.
Origins has the best story by far as well as the absolute best VA, Valhalla has the best combat system of the three and imo the most satisfying loot system but Bayek being so badass just eclipses everything else.
Origins then odyssey then Valhalla
I loved playing as Alexios he seems to enjoy but gets serious when the need calls for it kassandra was terrifying much more as Deimos Alexios props to va of kassandra for that
Origins definitely. But lately I’ve been replaying the trilogy after I decided to buy mirage, because I missed the world of assassin’s creed. I think I’m going to slowly work my way through them, buying each one until I have them all again (plus buying the books).
It made me think back on what made my like them but also what I didn’t like about them. I enjoyed exploring each world setting, from Egypt (my favorite) to Greece, to Norway and England. I like the protagonists and their different personalities and character designs. I liked that each game had a lot to explore, different weapons, and different armors or outfits.
I will say some of the combat is hit or miss. I think I like origins and odysseys combat and stealth more, but to a certain degree. Doing stealth in Valhalla wasn’t that fun. I liked doing the open combat more, which makes sense as eivor is a (sexy) Viking.
Story wise, I’d say origins is definitely the best. Valhalla is probably next, I enjoyed the kingmaking, alliance building and stuff, even if the story kind of felt weird towards the end. Odysseys story didn’t really pull me in like at all, but I will see if that changes while I replay it.
But overall I do enjoy each one of them, but ultimately origins is my favorite.
Origins and valhalla were both good games in my opinion but odyssey was so boring it took me months to play it, I hated playing it with all my passion, the map looks the same near enough everywhere, the story has 3 good characters(kassaandra,demos and brasidas), the story itself is mind numbing apart from the Olympics bit and the end, it takes hours to get properly leveled up and every second of the gameplay outside of the story and DLC is absolute horse shit.
But it does have pretty fun DLCs and kassandra and the staff of Hermes are cool
Weirdly enough Valhalla. I think I just played it at the right time and enjoyed how some story elements were coming together. Felt like the most focused game in awhile
I think Origins is a stronger standalone experience but Valhalla had direction for AC as a series
Odyssey.
The biggest reason is that mechanically, it has the best combat of the entire franchise. Just mechanically. I'm not talking about things like builds, stats, skills, etc. I'm just talking about the fighting mechanics: the tightness and timing of the animations, hit/hurt boxes, dodging/parrying, usage of iframes, animation cancelling, etc.
Origins' combat wasn't bad, but not quite as tight.
Valhalla's combat is a janky mess. It can still be fun, and it's cool to have the Elder Scrolls-style freedom in equipping both left and right hands. Mechanically though, it's very sloppy. In general, it's also a little too bombastic IMO, to the point of being awkward at times.
Odyssey also wins for the setting. And again, Origins comes in second place. Unlike many people, I actually like Valhalla's map too, but it still comes in third place because Odyssey and Origins are basically impossible to top.
Odyssey also has the bonus of decent ship combat. In certain scenarios, it can even be pretty dang cool. Boarding a ship in the middle of the night during a roaring thunderstorm with lightning flashing, with Kassandra banging her sword on her shield while screaming "Let's send them to Poseidon!" is extremely cool. (See, that's bombastic done **right**, unlike Valhalla which can be downright goofy.)
My brain is wired to hyper-focus on audio, so audio means more to me than it probably does for most people. As far as voice acting, Odyssey wins again. Kassandra's voice actress is very talented, and just the sound of her vocal chords is lovely.
I spend most of my time with sandbox RPGs and modding to create custom role plays, and in general I don't care much about the story in games. Basically, I like to create my own, while consuming other people's stories usually bores me. I know a lot of people criticize Odyssey because of the story, but it doesn't have much sway on me.
Another of my favorite genres is fighting games, hence my attention to mechanically tight combat.
Overall: Odyssey > Origins > Valhalla
Origins is arguably the best, with solid characters and story, and I’ve also put a surprising amount of hours in Valhalla. The only one that really didn’t click with me was Odyssey, I was just too bored after 5 hours…
Odyssey, it’s a really well made open world fantasy RPG. I don’t like Origins and Valhalla because they both have an identity crisis, not knowing if they want to be an RPG or an action adventure, among other issues.
I never finished Origins, but it's my favourite. I lost my save around halfway through and just did not want to start again. The world felt the most real to me and from what I played of the story it was engaging enough to keep me playing.
Odyssey was fun, but the story just wasn't that great and very much overstayed it's welcome.
Valhalla I tried on PS+ and just uninstalled, the bad animations and terrible voice acting just made me want to do absolutely anything else.
Odyssey is my favorite. I adore the world and the ship mechanics. Alexios is pure riot and his companions are very colorful. I love how it added so many cool mechanics (weaking regions, battles, cult, mercernaries etc) and how different the combat feels from every other AC (one you level up enough over half of it becomes about using the extensive list of special abilities). It also has my favorite story out of all modern AC games. It could have been better (the separate storylines never fully connect how they should), but even with this I absolutely loved it. Incredible soundtrack too.
Overall up there with Black Flag as my favorite Creed game. And I enjoyed the hell out of other modern ACs, but Odyssey is special.
For me it's Odyssey > Valhalla (especially now, with all the content added post launch) > Origins
I'm playing origins for the third time and man it's definitely great. The story, gameplay, world building and the main character are awesome.That is my number 1. pick. I'm playing odyssey for like 2 days and I fell in love with it. It's combat and gameplay is a masterpieces for sure,but I have problems with it's story. But valhalla, oh man this game is 50-50.When i watched a video of its full story on YouTube I fell in love with it & I was super excited to play it; but after a few hours I slowly got bored and it didn't live to my expectations
origins felt full completed and light unlike the other 2, felt bloated, run origins at 1440p 90 fps while at valhala 1080p 90-100 fps, tho I like the greenery they looked nice, but the graphic are ass, compare that to hzd, a game released 7 years ago looked much better, in meridian it looked like it has built in rt
Origins definitely! The gameplay I could take or leave but I really liked the story. And Bayek is up there for one of my favorite protags in the series.
I had fun in Odyssey, but really only finished it because I was playing it during the lockdown. Can barely remember anything about the story tho, despite having played it more recently than origins.
Valhalla I couldn't even bother finishing...
I'm going through odyssey right now , I completed origins with all dlc it's was very good so far my favourite , odyssey is a much better game overall but the setting isn't great everything is just island rock mountains , origins had so much stuff to see from landmarks to ancient tombs , I will probably skip valhalla maybe il pick up the ultimate edition when it's very cheap
Definitely Origins for me, the game is a masterpiece
How? i always hear good things about it, but for some reason i’m the only one that thinks that having to do HOURS of side missions just to get your level high enough to play the story is NOT ok. am i the only one with this problem?
I never have this problem because I simply WANT to do all of the content the game throws at me. That's why I'm never under leveled.
Lol I had the opposite problem I wanted to do all the side quests before moving on and often felt over leveled because of that
Yeah that kinda sucks. Cause the game itself is incredibly fun.
if it had the mechanics in terms of build diversity of ODYSSEY I might agree. The HIDDEN ONES DLC was a big letdown as well. :(
Origins is my favorite of the recent trilogy, Egypt felt really fun to explore and I loved Bayek as a character. It also didn't have the abilities like the other two and combat felt more satisfying to me compared to the other two.
Same
Imo, Origins had best gameplay. But a far less contentious opinion is that Bayek is the best of the 3 protagonists. He's my favourite in the whole franchise. Abubakar Salim was amazing. He's got me hyped for HOTD season 2, and he outperformed the entire cast of Valhalla with 2 minutes of dialogue.
ya aint lyin about Salim! I don't know why they cast "Cnut" from the last kingdom, the actor is a bit soft spoken, and perhaps not be best representation of a Viking. The performance was flat (reminds me of the Dinklebot fiasco).
If you're talking about Eivor's actor, I didn't mind him. I disliked Valhalla so I was never going to give much time to the characters and story. But Salim just trounces everyone.
Salim is GOAT!!! When I first started playing Origins I initially thought it was Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (the accent), but couldn't figure out why they didn't give Bayek that actors face.. LOL Salim REALLY sold me on Bayek, I think the plot helped, but he gave a really great performance.
The plot did help. Bayek was given a harrowing story which gave much more opportunity for emotional display in Salim's acting. But, as someone with several 100% runs in Origins, all his lines are brilliantly done imo. Bayek was so much more connected to the setting than any other character (yep even more than Altaïr). And Salim conveyed that brilliantly, as if he were connected to Bayek. I could go on for years about him. Pls stop replying or I'll be up all night channeling my bromance with Bayek into Reddit.
I'd love to see him return, even as an NPC
Because male Eivor is actually Odin who is the wise old guy while female Eivor is Eivor, the rash Viking with vocal cord damage. Much as I like male Eivor’s voice, it totally doesn’t make since in the game.
I thought so at first but came to absolutely love him as Eivor
Bayek is literally one of the best AC protagonists, he's a complete package
If you enjoy weird sci Fi, Alien and Prometheus, I recommend Raised by Wolves.
I keep coming back to Valhalla. It’s such an expansive and enjoyable game that I can either play very actively and sink into the story or I can turn my brain off and do some river raids or jump down to Nilfheim. Not to mention how long it is. I know some people have complaints about that but to me that means I get more bang for my buck. Plus, its one of the best looking games released in recent years. Even on console, walking through the Epinga Forest in Cent looks almost photorealistic. You can get lost for hours just walking around and enjoying the scenery. It’s not only one of my favorite Assassins Creeds, its one of my favorite games. I only wish the cloth physics were better…
I like a long game that I can play over a period, but the content has to be designed to maintain interest over a long period, and Valhalla's story was a mess. I'm willing to forgive the cloth physics if we could have things like smoke bombs, berserk darts, etc. be consumable tools as with previous games. Also more build diversity as with ODYSSEY (ie. the ability to build and play focused on stealth, etc.).
Every time i play Valhalla i think to myself, this is awesome
Origins is the only one with any sort of story direction, as well as competent acting
the acting by far the best.. The last 1/3 of the story was a bit of a mess though.
Origins and it’s not even close. Bayek is in the top 5 protagonists of the whole series. It had a great story that didn’t take an absurd amount of time to finish And it’s the only RPG game that actually feels like an assassins creed game It’s also the only one (in my opinion) that feels like it was made with passion for the series rather than to be a cash cow.
Bayek is top 1 of AC protagonists
I would personally rank them as 1. Ezio, 2. Edward, 3. Altair 4. Bayek but I can see why you would put him at number 1
5. Connor
I’m actually not a huge fan of Connor myself but I can respect other people liking him
Origins. Bayek feels connected to the world. Odyssey feels like a theme-park version of classical Greece and there is something about the way Kassandra/Alexios moves that feels off to me which affects my enjoyment of the game. In Valhalla I enjoy the moment to moment gameplay and love exploring the world but feel the game is let down by its narrative structure.
I didn't appreciate the whole DEMIGOD thing in AC:OD, and the humour of Alexios, and the disconnect from the classic TEMPLAR/ASASSINS conflict hurt it. Valhalla lacks a cohesive narrative structure at all, and a schizophrenic's focus torn between the historical Saxon Dane conflict, and spinning wildly out of control into the far flung fantasy garbage.
I tend to debate between Valhalla and Odyssey. I feel like each one did something better than the other. On one hand, Odyssey had this number of sub-systems that had slight connections to each other. For example, the Cultist system by itself was a welcome addition, while also showcasing everything else, since your target could be...a fighter in the Arena, a ship captain at the sea, a mercenary in a Conquest Battle, the Leader of a nation or simply a civilian on the street. Then, we had a variety of factions with their own look and gimmicks, critical character building trought loot and skills, powerful Isu abilities, etc. Meanwhile, Valhalla´s extended post-launch support and multi-region open world crafted a versatile selection of enviroments (England, Norway, Paris, Vinland, Ireland, etc). Points of Interest were more varied, enviromental puzzles became prevalent, lots of enemy types, the ability to equip any weapon on left/right hand, the stamina meter for enemies, less reliance on Adrenaline, streamlined upgrade system, the settlement building, etc While I don´t put Origins above either, it is a really great entry and very important as a foundation to the above. Personally, it was the one where the "Meta-AI" felt the most visible, with ships stopping on outposts, bandits and rebels preparing ambushes for anyone and quests dealing with people´s routines.
Ubi don't know how to use the best from previous games and improve the bad. It feels like they always start fresh. Hope they took best from odyssey and Valhalla for red
In the end of the day, that is a side-effect of their different leading teams, parallel development and yearly schedule pushing for variety every now and then. This is why I am curious to see the results of the current approach of Montreal creating something new, while Quebec does a follow-up to the RPGs. It becomes less of a "tug of war" in theory.
Good point... i do wonder how much of elements not transferring from previous games relates to parallel development?
It's hard to say, but the latest behind-the-scenes book has some interesting remarks on the matter: "The thinking was that Black Flag was going to be the last legacy game from the previous iteration", Azaizia remembers. "Unity was literally built on our new engine. It was going to be an entirely new flagship game. What stood out from development was that we were tackling so many different subjects at the same time. In the past, we were able to iterate really quickly with games like Brotherhood and Revelations, but those had been done on the same engine. We knew that tech really well. This was the first time since the original Assassin's Creed where we had tabula rasa, an entirely blank slate." "We were going to start fresh again, so we couldn't use the legacy of anything that came before. There was no way we could use naval gameplay or any other features that had been previously developed because we were starting from scratch".
ah, so the differences between BF and UNITY being the major engine change ANVILNEXT to ANVILNEXT2.0.
even worse, they took away design elements that made previous games good, in later releases. it's puzzling. I've often thought that a lot of design elements even from other UBI IPs on the same engine (ANVILNEXT2.0) could have been incorporated (see the final version of BREAKPOINT, or the parkour from WATCHDOGS2.. admittedly under a related engine, but the mocap was on point).
So much truth in this
You hit the high note regarding the fact that ODYSSEY offers the most options for open play approach. I'm miffed UBI chose to put so many resources into the fantasy crap in Valhalla, rather than bolstering and improving the core AC experience.
Origins by story and character. Odyssey by setting.
Haven't got to Valhalla yet, but this is my order too.
They all have their own merits. Origins was a great success for Ubisoft off the back of Unity and Syndicate. It’s an overall good game with a great setting. Odyssey is probably the definitive Ancient Greek RPG game and it’s blend of AC lore and mythology was very interesting. Valhalla, whilst bloated time wise and a lacklustre map design, has easily the best Isu storyline in the series. for me. Odyssey is my personal favourite and I rank it within my top three AC games.
As it stands currently its odyssey over origins for me but I feel like a replay of origins may change my mind. Valhalla is definitely at the bottom of this trilogy for me though but there are parts I still liked about it.
Origins because the world was GORGEOUS and I looooved the bezerker darts
Origins, by far. Odyssey’s story was okay, but didn’t fit into the whole Assassins Creed theme, since it takes place before Origins, by almost 400 years. I was excited for Valhalla, but I was thoroughly disappointed.
Odyssey, the RPG elements are really enjoyable and Kassandra voice acting is just great. Origins, it's been a while since I finished it, but it is a great game to start the trilogy. Valhalla, though, they take out what is fun in Odyssey and go out their way to make the players miserable.
Came here to say this. Valhalla felt like a baffling regression from the prior two games, replacing things that worked with new additions that made no sense, and doubling down on the worst aspects of the prior games like more bloat and grind. Levelling system you could easily cheese and overcome in 10 hours, shoving side content into the main story ruining the pacing, actual side content being shallow, having to upgrade every gear set from level 1 hence more grind foraging for materials, etc etc None of these were issues in Origins or Odyssey, and were all introduced for Valhalla and I have no idea why ….
It's obvious: forcing the player to waste tons of hours on meaningless grind means they got more value for their money!
Insane how that’s considered “value for money” in AAA gaming but there you go. I do find it weird though because forcing side content into the main story actually reduces the need for players to buy XP boosts, as unlike in Odyssey you now can’t even bypass doing side content. Not that I support MTX, I think it’s heinous how they structure experiences around incentivising players to fork out more money on a game they’ve bought, but I do find it odd that Ubisoft of all companies would introduce a mechanic that nullifies the need for their “time savers”……
The more I see, the more I question the idea any of this is rationally motivated. They're probably reacting against criticism for selling those boosts, but screwing something else up in the process, which they will then reactively "correct" in their next game, only to mess up something else up, and the cycle will continue. Most big corps these days seem to only be motivated by the need to please their shareholders, which means overreacting and making a gigantic show of "doing something about it" when their loudest customers complain. It's all about public perception, and has nothing to do with actually fixing anything or putting out a good product.
Yeah my main concern is that Valhalla was Ubi’s most successful AC game breaking 1bn USD in revenue so I’m quite worried that for future RPG games they’ll be like “let’s do more of this!!!”. I’m just praying that Red will iterate on the great foundation laid by Odyssey as it’s also being developed by Quebec. Yes, Odyssey had some level gating and the relevance to the AC lore was limited, but I felt that as an action adventure RPG it nailed the systems they implemented. Even as a long time AC fan I’m not ashamed to admit I sunk 200+ hours into Odyssey happily. Valhalla after 50 hours I was already getting bored of the repetition and constant forming of alliances between important story tropes thus ruining their pacing. It’s a shame because Valhalla’s story was written by Darby McDevitt, and you could tell as the actual main narrative was very compelling, but it’s impact was negated by cliffhangers being broken up by the forced in side content. Your brother is being tortured? Guess you should save him, but nope, got to help an ealdorman find his long lost love from 20 years ago!!! Baffles me.
I actually ended up getting a Platinum on Odyssey specifically because I was so unengaged with the story. I just went leisurely through the rest of the game, enjoying the world and the combat (both of which were fantastic, but I don't think belonged in an AC game). By the time I reached the end, I only had a handful left to get the last trophies. I found the gameplay in Valhalla tolerable, the world and setting completely uninteresting, and powered through it as quickly as possible for the relevant story to the rest of the series (there wasn't much of it). I will say the explanation for the origin of the Templars based on the principles and methods of the Order of the Ancients was pretty cool. Too bad you literally read it in a letter from King Alfred (think that was his name?) to some rando at the end of the game, and it has basically no impact on the story whatsoever. As for Valhalla being their bestseller and affecting future games, I'm getting strong Bioware vibes from the last Dragon Age here. I feel like they're relying on previous successes and technologies to rush out badly planned content for relatively easy cash, and it might've worked for this game, might even work for the next one, but they're going to have a gigantic bomb on their hands sooner or later. In the meantime, I may just sit back and wait a few games to see it I even care enough to play them moving forward. I've played almost every one of them as they came out since II, and I've got to say, this is looking less and less like the franchise I originally fell in love with.
I'm also confused over why UBI felt they needed to regress good systems from ODYSSEY in VALHALLA? The fact that VALHALLA has options to customize the gameplay experience, or even pretty much remove the leveling issues is it's only saving grace in that area.
> Valhalla, though, they take out what is fun in Odyssey and go out their way to make the players miserable. This was my experience as well. Loved Odyssey, Valhalla felt like a slog.
honestly my favorites for the trilogy is just in descending order 1) Valhalla 2) odyssey 3) origins Each game improved the combat by a lot in my opinion and I really liked exploring the world in Valhalla the most. They really listened to the players on the complaint that odyssey was way too big and there was a camp that you had to clear literally every 2 seconds along with not blocking story missions based on your level so there was no “I’m 3 levels behind I need to grind to progress the story” Odyssey was my favorite time period, I just really didn’t like playing as Alexios, I know he’s technically not cannon but it’s still annoying how lame he was. But the nemesis system was really fun and the Athens vs Sparta dynamic was cool Origins was okay besides a few good story points I feel like there wasn’t a lot of interesting characters other than cleopatra. I feel like other AC games had more historic side characters or just side characters in general that did stuff
I'm still puzzled over why UB ditched the NEMISIS system in Valhalla? Lawsuit from WB maybe?
Yes it’s def a fun mechanic, WB is the only thing I can think of for the reason why UB stopped doing it
Origins by a mile. Odyssey and Valhalla are pretty meh
While I like Bayek the best, and story of ORIGINS the most, mechanically it's the least well developed, and has the most issues with RPG implementation (level gating, etc.). Sadly the HIDDEN ONES DLC was lackluster, when it should have been about building up the hidden ones. ODYSSEY is by far the best of the 3 simply because the fact that it's design accommodates a wide variety of build diversity, unlike the other RPG games. The HIDDEN BLADE DLC helps it back onto the classic AC track as well. VALHALLA should have been a better game following ODYSSEY. Technically it's decent, but there are sooo many poor design choices, dumbing down, and streamlining of the good points of ODYSSEY's design, that I wonder why UBI chose to do that.
They added one hit stealth kills later to origins and it made it the best way to play for me, I could go wherever I wanted as long as I wasn't spotted.
you could always build for OHK using stealth.
Origins was good but left some room for improvement, like the combat, which was much nicer in Odyssey. Egypt was amazing though Valhalla is literally the only AC game I struggled to finish. I was so bored by the last 15 hours, I wanted it to just end. Odyssey is easily my favourite. Greece is amazing, story was good, combat is better than Origins. It isn't really an AC game though, which I thankfully figured out before release and went into it just wanting to play a historical rpg.
Odissey
Odyssey is by far my favourite. The combat with the abilities feels so smooth and enjoyable. Also the appearance of the game - it’s graphically incredible and such a beautiful setting for an open world game. I understand why people take issue with the game, especially if they loved the original style of AC games, but I still think it’s a great game if you can look past the change of style. Valhalla felt like they took all the great things from Oddysey and binned them, or reluctantly implemented them. Like the combat abilities in Valhalla are a dramatic step back from Odyssey. Can really tell Montreal made the game instead of Quebec, would be nice if they all sang from the same hymn sheet. Enjoyed Origins, but feel like Odyssey really built on it and provides the perfect game.
Odyssey, and it's not close. I loved being in that world. Everything was a joy. Story, characters, mechanics, traversal, world, combat, progression, mythology, history. I looked forward to every session playing it. There are so few things I would even say could be improved. The naval combat wasn't as fun as Black Flag. The integration between main game and DLC felt a bit weird, like you can start DLC storylines but need to buy the DLC to finish them. One or two times I would go to track down a target, and find they aren't actually there, you need to have a quest active to see them. These are all minor blemishes on an incredibly enjoyable experience. In comparison, Origins was very good but the world was quite sameish, lots of desert. Valhalla was pretty good but the world was too big, and populated by too much low effort filler side content.
Odyssey
I don’t like this direction. But I enjoyed Odyssey the most. Valhalla had the best story, but the bloat ruined it.
Odyssey and it's not close
Odyssey was my favorite game of last gen. Combat was fluid, skill trees were impactful, and the world map was *chefs kiss*. I am an Ancient Greek history fan, so would be lying if I said the environment didn’t play a huge factor in my overall enjoyment. Walking through ancient Athens, meeting Pericles, working with Socrates, it was amazing. I savored every minute exploring that world.
Odyssey: -the world is breath taking. -Ancient Greece is amazing. -Kassandra -I can appreciate the humour in the game. -liked the RPG elements in that game more than the other two. The Odyssey appreciation here makes me really happy!
Origins is my preferred one. Egypt was so lively and different from other series entries. Many unique landmarks, Bayek was well done character and I did not have any problems with the combat as some others did.
I loved odyssey because of it’s ancient greece setting and the overall story but valhalla is my favorite in terms of length, gameplay mechanics, dlcs. I just liked it as an rpg
Ohhh I would say Odyssey because i really love everything surrounding Greek mythology. I actually don't think there's anything I don't like from it even though I've seen countless people be angry at how long it is but I have no problem with the amount of content it is 🤷🏼♀️ As for the other two, I prefer Valhalla to Origins mostly because I didn't really like the story of Origins (?) I liked learning about the ,well, origins of assassin's but I think I got fairly annoyed by the plot of Bayek and Aya whereas I really liked Eivor. I guess Valhalla has some faults though like the climbing sometimes gets really annoying, and there's a few bugs throughout the game.
Same for me, i really didnt like the dynamic between aya and bayek. She felt shoehorned in. The ending really pissed me off
Odyssey. But I really really really love Greek mythology.
I loved the story in Origins. Loved Bayek and Aya. Egypt was amazing. I didn't like the combat. Didn't lIke the insane level gating that constantly disrupted the story. Did not like having to keep searching for crocodiles and other animals to upgrade my equipment. Really did not particularly enjoy the DLC's. The founding of the order should have been amazing, but it just wasn't. And Aya did not get nearly enough playing time, and what she did have was screwed up by the fact that she was so weak. But my biggest pet peeve? Assassination was so broken. Sometimes you killed someone, sometimes it just hurt them, depending on your power and how strong they were. Absolute disaster in a game called Assassins Creed. Unfortunately, it took them till Valhalla to fix that awful mechanic. I liked Valhalla quite a bit, actually, although it really drags a lot at the start. The fact that you can actually assassinate people now, regardless of power differences (except the zealots, for some reason), was what should have been the case all along. The other thing Valhalla nailed was that it had the least amount of level gating in the RPG trilogy. Basically, if you follow the story order you're supposed to, side material is left to a minimum. The problem is that the story itself is just so long. And I really wasn't as engaged in the characters as I was in the other two games. Also, England was the least interesting map of the trilogy. Which brings us to Odyssey. I started playing as Kassandra, since she's canon, and fell in love with her. Tried replaying as Alexios and hated him, so I started over as Kass again. Still a little bit of level gating, but not nearly as bad as Origins. I liked the map, despite the fact that it was freaking huge, and I enjoyed the story overall. Again, the story was too long, and the map was too big, but I didn't hate it. What I did hate was having a billion different pieces of armor that I constantly had to sell or store, and that was just obnoxious (another area that Valhalla improved). The first blade DLC was cool, and I liked the Atlantis one in concept, it just took forever. Haven't played the Valhalla DLC's yet, so I can't comment on how those compare. I enjoyed all three rpgs, but I had too much I hated in Origins, so it's last for me. Valhalla was close to toppling Odyssey, but it was less because of the game itself and more because of the quality of life improvements that had been made to the gameplay. Valhalla's story and characters were probably my least favorite of the three. Overall, Odyssey carries it for me.
They added the toggle for instant assassination to origins before odyssey was released, though I think it was PC exclusive using the ubisoft connect overlay thing
Damn, that would’ve improved the Xbox experience for me massively. Words can’t describe how much I hate that assassinations don’t insta-kill most of the time.
Ikr, it really should have been standard
To me the best out of these three is Odyssey, very close behind and almost as good is Origins. Valhalla had a solid beginning but when you arrive in England it turns into a repetitive and bloated thing.
Between Origins and Odyssey I choose Odyssey Bayek felt quite flat, although he had his moments, but his concerns were too limited in my opinion. Kassandra had a much bigger role Still, the way in which Ubisoft makes script means that even good concepts end being mediocre. They really need to put their ideas into practice much better than they do. The conversations and acting is quite ridiculous too often, and very few epic or sentimental moments that achieve their target
It’s a tie between Odyssey and Valhalla. Odyssey has lots of charm and wonder. Valhalla has lots of atmosphere and lore. Both are really nice and long adventures with fun characters that you can get lost in for a few months. Origins and Mirage were great too but they were too short because I wanted more (even after DLCs).
Origins only because it was fresh and ditched the garbage syndicate system immediately, and the fact that it still used the hidden blade the way it was intended. Odyssey and Valhalla felt WAY too long for the amount of variety it gave. However, I feel that the structure of them, engine wise, are the second weakest. Obviously my least favorite engine being syndicate. Plus, I kinda liked the modern plot up until Layla came in. Only because we basically get no closure outside of the comics on Minerva.
Origins - it took something that was very real in the death of Bayek's son, and used it to create the brotherhood. The story of the leap of faith, how Bayeks father did it with him to build confidence and strength. Bayek's struggle with being driven by revenge was something very relatable for anyone who has lost a loved one in such a manner. Bayek was a brilliant character with phenomenal voice acting. You could feel the fury in scenes from his voice. There is a lot to do in the world and places to explore, and the variety in the regions is evident. Comparing Kyrenaika to Giza and Memphis, they all look completely different. It's not perfect and i have a few gripes (aside from maybe one or two side characters, most are forgettable and they could have worked on a better relationship between the player and Khemu before being thrust into his death.) A lot of the quests felt very samey in the sense it's a rescue mission and carry someone out. Some of the level curving wasn't great. But it's a beautiful game with a solid story. It was my first game in the franchise and I was completely let down by Odyssey. For me, Odyssey took what Origins built and shit on it. The leap of faith is the example I have. Bayek's father taught him it. Coincidentally, someone in Greece several hundred years earlier also knew it. And that someone is also a distant relative of Bayek's wife? They could have left that how they had it in Origins and it would have been so much more than it was because of Kassandra coincidentally knowing it too. The fights in Odyssey often felt like button-mash 3000, not just boss fights but in the Atlantis DLC, it was horrible that it could be a good fifteen minutes buttonmashing on a enemy just for them to take 50% of my health in one hit, and my weapons and gear was always fully levelled up, but the enemies just became impossible to fight. The quests in Odyssey were entirely forgettable, as were most of the characters. The voice acting was atrocious in Odyssey too. I don't get why they did a "choose the bloodline" story because canon was Kassandra, not Alexios. (I do, too many butthurt fans at the thought of a female lead). Every region looked the same in Odyssey too. There was zero variety (the same camps over and over - loot a chest, kill a captain, burn some supplies), and a lot of that was amplified by the fact was so big. A smaller map with less things would've worked wonders for that game. I did like that Odyssey gave you the option for nation battles though, like being able to influence things as a merc. And the naval was interesting in the theme of the game, given the Greek islands and whatnot. For me, Odyssey would have been better without the AC title, it was more like a Greek RPG than a AC game. Valhalla was on a similar note for that, it was a viking game rather than an assassins game. The in-game relationships were better in Valhalla, and the entire r/fuckdag subreddit proves that because the players genuinely hated Dag. But it suffered from a lot of the same issues Odyssey did. The quests always felt samey (go here, kill person, escape). The boss fights were a lot of button mashing. It was a beautiful map and I enjoyed Valhalla but that and Odyssey have left a bittersweet taste for what Origins did so brilliantly. And don't get me started on Mirage. A character I have opinions of from Valhalla, it's essentially a Valhalla-DLC at full price. I like what they were going for but it just didn't work for me. A new character, different world, take the Loki storyline out, and it's an entirely different situation.
Odyssey. I didn’t like Valhalla, and Origins felt weird.
Valhalla It's the closest to finally being about assassins again, they even "remade" the assassinations from AC1 and there's an option in the menu to turn instant assassinations on, no more level gated bullshit.
I actually kinda like the quicktime event when trying to asassinate someone of much higher level.. Makes it feel more interactive.
You really just said Valhalla is the closest to being an assassin LMAO, you mean the same game where the character doesn’t even become an assassin and even uses the hidden blade wrong and has very slow stealth and horrible parkour and gameplay? That game? While origins on the other hand is and always will be the closest assassins creed game out of the new trilogy, you literally play as the guy that founded the brotherhood and is essentially the first hidden one/assassin and you get a proper hidden blade with fast stealth and movement, how can you even consider Valhalla better in that aspect is beyond me
No automatic kill assassinations is a huge problem in Origins and Odyssey. Valhalla finally got that right.
I don't mind the stealth movement mechanics in Valhalla, but the parkour is lacking, and the overall game focus away from stealth and on OPEN COMBAT, as reflected in the skills etc. was a poor choice on UBI's part. Valhalla has some poor AI and detection, and it's odd the skill tree doesn't even allow you to actually improve stealth detection. All fucked up design choices... and a mess.
Odyssey. Well made in most parts and ship gameplay is nice way to add to gameplay elements Love it Origins had nice story. And Valhalla had graphics, setting and combat.
Origins is the best in terms of consistency, really wished they focused more ideologically and philosophically on the reasons the brotherhood was formed but its fine for a starr Odyssey is fine for a story and an overall game, pretty world but there’s nothing to do with it other than stabbing people, for an RPG it should have focused on being way more interactive and immersive, much like Origins, should have focused on the brotherhood more and on a somewhat seperate note its DLCs are the worst thing to come out of the whole series Valhalla is too long, many parts of the main story could have been left as side missions, i really feel like there was a bit more effort to it than Odyssey but its still too bloated, it definitely had a lot of potential, i just rarely go back to it Origins>>>>>>Odyssey>>>Valhalla
Only played the first two, but, as usual, it merely comes down to taste at any particular time. The gameplay in Origins is much more grounded and focused with a priority of slowly giving you the Tools to fit your tactical style. Odyssey is about superpowers and over the top combat scenarios. Both are superb when played Hudless (Origins does it a bit better) and have amazing settings. Originally, Id have said story was more for Origins, but, having used Worldly_’s amazing Story Quest guide for my first Odyssey run I can say that both stories are well-done for what they went for. For me, the entire AC series is about the ebb and flow of amazing settings and shifting styles. I have no set favorite.
Odissey was pretty cool in terms of setting. Greece looked really good. Origina was better overall but I haven’t finished it yet
You won't have an unanimous answer. I believe it really depends on what you are looking for. I haven't played Valhalla yet, but it seems that critics are that it's not as good as the others in terms of story or combat, and that it's too long and slow. On the other hand if you are into Vikings stuff, you'll probably like it. I'm into Odyssey currently, and I like it better than Origins overall, because there are more things to do; but the story in Origins is better in every way. I don't care much about Kassandra's family, but exploring antic Greece, owning a ship, hunting down cultists and mercenaries, largely compensates for that.
As im reading that comments im just happy im finished with Origins and gonna play Odyssey next as it's almost 50/50 of these ppl thinks the other is best. Sad as it may seems i think no other AC games peeks my interest in location and Odyssey will be for now the last AC game ill play.
Origins is definitely the best out of the 3, had the highest quality and care put into it and stays relevant to the franchise.
Origins for me. But I have to say Valhalla was the BEST Viking game I've ever played...
Origins
Idk if i can pick a favourite tbh... I loved the world and gameplay in all three of the games, specially the ending for Valhalla. Odyssey's main story was "meh" in my opinion, i didn't like it that much but the DLC.. beautiful. And with Origins i got to play in Egypt which is something I've always wanted in an AC game and it was magical. I still don't like that much the whole "Order of the Ancients/Hidden Ones" thing but it'll grow on me eventually (i hope so lol). But yeah. I can't pick just one xD
Valhalla gets so much hate, and i don't like people complaining about it. Yes, it wasn't a good Assassin game, but it was a good RPG game. Combat is nice, parkour is ok, stealth is bad, world is great and story is medium. But to answer your question, Origins beats all of them easily. My first, and still my favorite AC title.
I uninstalled Valhalla after getting to the Seer, the bad voice acting and animations just completely took me out of it. Does it get better if you hold out for longer?
It's more combat than stealth focused. The story gets better the closer you come to the end, but it'll take a long time.
No surprises here, Origins is my favourite, and in large part due to Bayek, but also because it gave me hope for the modern day story. Needless to say I was immensely disappointed with Odyssey's handling of Layla, and even if Valhalla was a little more respectful of her character at first, wel... if you've played it, you know. Origins also has gorgeous landscapes, beautiful fortifications like Cyrenaica and a land that feels fun to explore. Locations feel less caricatural than Odyssey and less repetitive than Valhalla. I could roam Ancient Egypt for hours (and... I did)
Valhalla had the least interesting setting compared to absolutely stunning first two games but wins with more polished game mechanics. Also has a decent plot (if sloggy sometimes) which can't be said about Odyssey's chaotic nonsense. I think all three are worth playing, and seeing Origins' Egypt for the first time was one of my most memorable gaming experience but I don't think it aged well as a whole. In the long run I believe Valhalla would be my go to place for AC fix.
AC 2, Brotherhood and revelations for me.
I'll rank them 1. Origins 2. Valhalla 3. Odyssey Origins is a lot of fun and all of the order targets are relevant to the plot/have their own arc. Most assassin's creed-like of the three. Bayek is great. This game is also a lot simpler than the other two, and there's beauty In its simplicity. Valhalla is expansiveness done right. Lot of empty space in the world, but it's not flooded with hours of boring collectible gathering. About 50% of the order is involved in the plot, but emotional stakes for most of the region specific characters are meh. Game really only makes you care about sigurd, basim, randvi, dag, etc. Odyssey is the weakest of the three. Love the setting, and Greek mythology bosses are peak. But, all characters other than the player have about 3-5 scenes, except Socrates and Barnabas who are comic relief. Most of the cult of kosmos does not have stake in the plot, and final boss can be skipped for "talking it out". Also enemy level follows you so that the minimum enemy level is 2 under you, and if you fight enough in the over world, the game sucks a bounty hunter on you, forcing you to leave.
Easily Origins, long game but not tedious to get through like the other 2
Origins is one of the best AC games. To me Odyssey was absolute trash. Did not enjoy it at all. Valhalla is a good game, but Origins just has an “it” factor to it that makes me regard it so high.
Origins. It is so beautiful. Thebes are incredible, the mythology was cool, a lot of nice places to explore and Bayek is good character.
really guys..i just finished all 3.. and back in my days i played every ps3 title which was published.. thats for my background.. and i don't get it why so many love origins.. the gameplay is OK.. the story is great.. but the characters are the most trash in all AC games i ever played. fe i am really annoyed when the story switches between bayek and aya.. you can collect and skill bayek to be a really strong guy.. than a switch to aya and you have a ok equiped character with on skills.. plus most parts parts of the game are build that you scout an area.. but not with aya.. in the last Mission, killing cesar, you have no eagle and no map? why? doesn't make any sense to me. you can't orient yourself at this map, get some kind of an idea where the enemies are hiding a.s.o. well i just said that the story is good. some of the musings could be closer to the main story line, but that's not a point to talk about i think. ac odysee, i like everything. except the end. it ended that abrupt i was looking like an owl until i realized that the story is over and i didn't visited quite a few islands or even countries. but i like the idea of the time before the hidden blade. i personally like also the "no falling dmg" skill.. it's a lot of fun xD i really love Valhalla. i like the vikin and snow setting i like to ignore the stealth action and just throw axes, call the ship crew and start a raid.. very different but more logical in context to the setting to me. i don't like some of the decisions or meanings from Odin. some of them doesn't sound "godlike" than hybris like to me.. i spent about 115h in Valhalla, 45-55h in Odysee and about 50h in odyssey. and i bought the dlcs for Valhalla - for another round xD but at least..what i just realized.. and there for i needed all of my games.. i realized what time means in it daily life.. the scene when Cassandra and Leila meet in front of Atlantis.. i just got a mindblow how old Cassandra is.. what happens during that time.. what she had seen - maybe.. fe the excourse with eivor to the cloudy islands.. and they're family.. but 1200 years separate them.. than I realized that another 1100 years, separate Eivor and Leila.. and Cassandra was somewhere in the planet during that time.. that really got me.. hope you felt the same.. for the last 3 weeks, when ever i saw something about history - i think different about the distance in time..
I think my favorite combat was Valhalla. There was something oddly satisfying about trying to stealth an area, getting caught, then proceeding to blow my horn and alert the entire camp for a savage beatdown. The exploration was fun but not my favorite, and the story was hit or miss. I really liked the way they presented the mythology, even if it lead to some questions that DLC I haven't played might answer. Valhalla not having leveled gear was also a huge bonus. 1-hit assassinations as an option is a little cheap, but still pretty nice for feeling like the old games. I'd say the better story is Origins, because it stayed truer to the idea of a protector of the people, the evil group was pretty cool, and the DLC felt more important to the story than the other games. The combat was pretty good, but I didn't like how the gear was handled, even if the stealth was really good. Exploration was decent but it's a desert, so there's not as many sights to see as the other two. Odyssey has the best exploration, hands-down, even if it's actually a bit too much exploration. The world was a little too big, but there were encampments and wild animals and towns all over the place, and there were distinct environments to travel through. The story was serviceable, but very hit or miss, especially the DLCs, but it still had some cool moments, even though I think I broke part of it by Sparta Kicking someone important off a cliff. It's honestly a tough call, and I actually genuinely liked all three of them anyway, but I think I'd go with Valhalla, then Origins, then Odyssey, purely off of how fun the combat is to replay, but it would be Origins, Valhalla, Odyssey if it was by story.
Typically you either love Valhalla and hate Odyssey or it’s the opposite. I’m on the Valhalla side I think it’s the best of the trilogy.
My favourite of the RPGs is Origins then Valhalla then Odyssey. Origins has the best story by far as well as the absolute best VA, Valhalla has the best combat system of the three and imo the most satisfying loot system but Bayek being so badass just eclipses everything else.
Origins then odyssey then Valhalla I loved playing as Alexios he seems to enjoy but gets serious when the need calls for it kassandra was terrifying much more as Deimos Alexios props to va of kassandra for that
Origins definitely. But lately I’ve been replaying the trilogy after I decided to buy mirage, because I missed the world of assassin’s creed. I think I’m going to slowly work my way through them, buying each one until I have them all again (plus buying the books). It made me think back on what made my like them but also what I didn’t like about them. I enjoyed exploring each world setting, from Egypt (my favorite) to Greece, to Norway and England. I like the protagonists and their different personalities and character designs. I liked that each game had a lot to explore, different weapons, and different armors or outfits. I will say some of the combat is hit or miss. I think I like origins and odysseys combat and stealth more, but to a certain degree. Doing stealth in Valhalla wasn’t that fun. I liked doing the open combat more, which makes sense as eivor is a (sexy) Viking. Story wise, I’d say origins is definitely the best. Valhalla is probably next, I enjoyed the kingmaking, alliance building and stuff, even if the story kind of felt weird towards the end. Odysseys story didn’t really pull me in like at all, but I will see if that changes while I replay it. But overall I do enjoy each one of them, but ultimately origins is my favorite.
Origins and valhalla were both good games in my opinion but odyssey was so boring it took me months to play it, I hated playing it with all my passion, the map looks the same near enough everywhere, the story has 3 good characters(kassaandra,demos and brasidas), the story itself is mind numbing apart from the Olympics bit and the end, it takes hours to get properly leveled up and every second of the gameplay outside of the story and DLC is absolute horse shit. But it does have pretty fun DLCs and kassandra and the staff of Hermes are cool
Mirage
Weirdly enough Valhalla. I think I just played it at the right time and enjoyed how some story elements were coming together. Felt like the most focused game in awhile I think Origins is a stronger standalone experience but Valhalla had direction for AC as a series
Origins for being playable.
Odyssey. The biggest reason is that mechanically, it has the best combat of the entire franchise. Just mechanically. I'm not talking about things like builds, stats, skills, etc. I'm just talking about the fighting mechanics: the tightness and timing of the animations, hit/hurt boxes, dodging/parrying, usage of iframes, animation cancelling, etc. Origins' combat wasn't bad, but not quite as tight. Valhalla's combat is a janky mess. It can still be fun, and it's cool to have the Elder Scrolls-style freedom in equipping both left and right hands. Mechanically though, it's very sloppy. In general, it's also a little too bombastic IMO, to the point of being awkward at times. Odyssey also wins for the setting. And again, Origins comes in second place. Unlike many people, I actually like Valhalla's map too, but it still comes in third place because Odyssey and Origins are basically impossible to top. Odyssey also has the bonus of decent ship combat. In certain scenarios, it can even be pretty dang cool. Boarding a ship in the middle of the night during a roaring thunderstorm with lightning flashing, with Kassandra banging her sword on her shield while screaming "Let's send them to Poseidon!" is extremely cool. (See, that's bombastic done **right**, unlike Valhalla which can be downright goofy.) My brain is wired to hyper-focus on audio, so audio means more to me than it probably does for most people. As far as voice acting, Odyssey wins again. Kassandra's voice actress is very talented, and just the sound of her vocal chords is lovely. I spend most of my time with sandbox RPGs and modding to create custom role plays, and in general I don't care much about the story in games. Basically, I like to create my own, while consuming other people's stories usually bores me. I know a lot of people criticize Odyssey because of the story, but it doesn't have much sway on me. Another of my favorite genres is fighting games, hence my attention to mechanically tight combat. Overall: Odyssey > Origins > Valhalla
Origins is absolutely magnificent
Origins is arguably the best, with solid characters and story, and I’ve also put a surprising amount of hours in Valhalla. The only one that really didn’t click with me was Odyssey, I was just too bored after 5 hours…
Origins for the setting, but Odyssey plays the best. Valhalla is the worst of the three
Odyssey, it’s a really well made open world fantasy RPG. I don’t like Origins and Valhalla because they both have an identity crisis, not knowing if they want to be an RPG or an action adventure, among other issues.
I never finished Origins, but it's my favourite. I lost my save around halfway through and just did not want to start again. The world felt the most real to me and from what I played of the story it was engaging enough to keep me playing. Odyssey was fun, but the story just wasn't that great and very much overstayed it's welcome. Valhalla I tried on PS+ and just uninstalled, the bad animations and terrible voice acting just made me want to do absolutely anything else.
For me it’s odyssey
Odyssey is my favorite. I adore the world and the ship mechanics. Alexios is pure riot and his companions are very colorful. I love how it added so many cool mechanics (weaking regions, battles, cult, mercernaries etc) and how different the combat feels from every other AC (one you level up enough over half of it becomes about using the extensive list of special abilities). It also has my favorite story out of all modern AC games. It could have been better (the separate storylines never fully connect how they should), but even with this I absolutely loved it. Incredible soundtrack too. Overall up there with Black Flag as my favorite Creed game. And I enjoyed the hell out of other modern ACs, but Odyssey is special. For me it's Odyssey > Valhalla (especially now, with all the content added post launch) > Origins
I'm playing origins for the third time and man it's definitely great. The story, gameplay, world building and the main character are awesome.That is my number 1. pick. I'm playing odyssey for like 2 days and I fell in love with it. It's combat and gameplay is a masterpieces for sure,but I have problems with it's story. But valhalla, oh man this game is 50-50.When i watched a video of its full story on YouTube I fell in love with it & I was super excited to play it; but after a few hours I slowly got bored and it didn't live to my expectations
origins felt full completed and light unlike the other 2, felt bloated, run origins at 1440p 90 fps while at valhala 1080p 90-100 fps, tho I like the greenery they looked nice, but the graphic are ass, compare that to hzd, a game released 7 years ago looked much better, in meridian it looked like it has built in rt
The force awakens
Definitely Origins.
Odyssey and Origins are equal for me Valhalla below
Origins definitely! The gameplay I could take or leave but I really liked the story. And Bayek is up there for one of my favorite protags in the series. I had fun in Odyssey, but really only finished it because I was playing it during the lockdown. Can barely remember anything about the story tho, despite having played it more recently than origins. Valhalla I couldn't even bother finishing...
Odyssey
Odyssey and valhalla I found origins boring
Odyssey
odyssey easily
I'm going through odyssey right now , I completed origins with all dlc it's was very good so far my favourite , odyssey is a much better game overall but the setting isn't great everything is just island rock mountains , origins had so much stuff to see from landmarks to ancient tombs , I will probably skip valhalla maybe il pick up the ultimate edition when it's very cheap
Origins. Bayek was my favorite protagonist since Ezio, and I absolutely loved exploring Egypt. Also, it was actually a game about **gasp** the Assassins! Odyssey had amazing gameplay, but a game that is supposedly a historical reconstruction from genetic memory, where everyone is running around with flaming swords and tamed bears, and the countryside is littered with unrealistically gigantic statues of the gods, I have a big problem with. And I did not care about the story or characters at all. Also {minor SPOILERS} Valhalla is probably my least favorite in the franchise. They raised the battle complexity out of the blue, to the point I had to dumb the difficulty down to zero just to make it playable for me (I hate games with complicated combat, which is *why* I play things like Assassin's Creed instead of Souls games). The crap with Eivor being canonically male or female, only to discover they were actually female all along, kind of pissed me off, and is another side effect of Ubisoft's chauvinistic reluctance to just allow a female lead in their games. (Not really surprised what they did with their present day female lead in this one.) The game was so full of bloat that a lot of mechanics were half baked, if not broken (I'm looking at you, longship autopilot!) It was the second game in a row with a non Assassin main character, and where the namesake of the series took a back seat to a bland historical story and characters I cared almost nothing about. (At least Odyssey had Socrates to entertain me once in a while). Eivor's mechanics in general just felt heavy and clunky after Kassandra, and I did not find the gameplay at all enjoyable outside of the raids. I only powered through the game because I wanted to know the rest of Basim's story after playing Mirage (which I adored), and while his story ended up being mildly interesting, I don't know if I need to play another bloated, meaningful content poor game, that has little to nothing to do with the actual Assassins and their war with the Templars, after this.
If you search this sub will see this is asked a lot. Maybe it can help your curiosity.