Assassin's Creed Valhalla is the perfect example of death by 1000 cuts. |
- Valhalla is the perfect example of death by 1000 cuts.
- Dear Ubisoft Give Us An Option to Disable Execution Cam
- Whoever thought that displaying buffs with rune icons must like to see people suffer
- It’s incredible how much public opinion has shifted on Unity
- I've never EVER said this about an RPG before, but... the main story is too long
- Do you prefer to 100% the game(s) before or after finnishing the story?
- Ubisoft, please add an option to switch sprinting into a hold action.
- Hoping for upgrades on the settlement
- Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
- I played Unity without any problems and found it to be my favorite assassin's creed game
- Athenians Sing About Heroic Spartans
- [Spoilers] Clarified: Faravid or Halfdan
- A warning for completionist (AC Valhalla) NO SPOILERS
- I thought combat was unfair... Until I becamea viking knitting enemies with 0two toothpicks
- AC Valhalla Changing the Appearance of your Gear.
- Changing the different kind of bows during combat
- Ubisoft kindly please remove the multiplayer related achievements in the older Assassins Creed games
- A friend of mine worked on this video... I thought you all might like to see!
- [Spoiler] How the team react to Anomalies in the Endgame
- [SPOILER] Valhalla should have been set in a different time (930-950s rather than 860s)
- Was Aletheia really sympathetic to humans? Spoilers for Valhalla and Odyssey.
- Will I like odyssey if I'm liking Valhalla?
- Assassin's Creed Valhalla - every Ending explained. Spoiler warning!!!
- Not a fan of the wildlife AI in Assassin's Creed Origins
| Valhalla is the perfect example of death by 1000 cuts. Posted: 30 Nov 2020 04:32 AM PST There's so much to like about AC Valhalla. The graphics look great, the stories are interesting, the protagonist is fairly solid, the core exploration and combat gameplay loops are engaging, and the more stripped back game makes everything more enjoyable and less of a slog. But after some game time, you start noticing some little things. You notice that when you're sailing your ship, the axe starts vibrating in its holster, you notice that the lips and movement in conversation never quite fit, you get annoyed when some bags clip through the cloak on the hidden one's armour when you have the hood up and are walking, you die in a fight with a wolf because you touched their arse while they were doing a red attack (which makes no sense), after a while, you spot that 95% of dialogue options have 0 effect on the gameplay and exist to make the game look more like the Witcher 3, etc etc. I really like Valhalla, but it's so frustrating that there are so many small things that add up to make the overall experience worse. They managed to avoid the Unity style bugs, but I still think this could have done with another half a year to polish everything up. Obviously, the board and shareholders at Ubisoft could never stand for this. Valhalla had to be out to coincide with the new console launches and before Christmas, and as a result it's the best selling AC game at launch so far. But I think that pushing for an early release has taken this game from an AC classic and the pinnacle of the OOV trilogy to being a fun experience which I don't really plan on going back to once I'm done with it. Those are my opinions, let me know if I'm talking out of my arse. Edit: just a couple of typos Edit 2: I have seen a vast range of opinions in the replies to this post. The modal view seems to agree with the points I have made above, but I've seen everything from calling Valhalla a masterpiece to saying it's the worst game in the series. I find that on its own quite fascinating. If you're enjoying the game and haven't noticed any of the problems I've mentioned above, good! Carry on playing and enjoying the game! Just because I and many others have seen bugs and design flaws doesn't mean you can't have fun. And I do think I need to say something to people who think I'm nitpicking. I wouldn't mind so much if there were only a couple of small problems, but the reason I made this post is because I lost count of how many small nits I found, each one individually would have been easily overlooked, but all together they take away more than the sum of their parts. Hence, "death by 1000 cuts". Anyway, it's good to see that I've started a vigorous discussion, but I doubt I'll contribute much more. Have a nice day everyone! [link] [comments] | ||
| Dear Ubisoft Give Us An Option to Disable Execution Cam Posted: 30 Nov 2020 05:58 PM PST I really like valhalla's fighting system. It's fast, brutal, bloody and I can feel every hit unlike the last 2 games (Origins, Odyssey). But after playing this game for 40-50 hours, the forced kill cam that zooms in for execution started to annoy me. It locks on to a fixed angle and it doesnt let you move your cam until animation ends. It really takes my feeling of free movement and it suffocates me. I think it also breaks the flow of the fight too . Sometimes it bugs out and cam doesnt zoom in and lock, then the execution animations feels good since i can look around as I please. So dear ubisoft give us an option to disable that execution cam please. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one feels like this. [link] [comments] | ||
| Whoever thought that displaying buffs with rune icons must like to see people suffer Posted: 30 Nov 2020 01:17 PM PST I don't know if there's a way to change this but right now, for example, when my shield goes on cooldown after triggering an explosion on a parry (that's what it does) the icon of a rune will appear above my health bar, slowly depleting until this passive ability is back. Doesn't sound too bad right? Well it does when you have your health bar with like 4 or 5 different rune icons above it once you get some good gear and you have no idea which one is which, because they look extremely similar, it's like Japanese Kanjis. Why not use normal icons that are easily recognizable so that i know when my passive is back up or when my damage buff is over? [link] [comments] | ||
| It’s incredible how much public opinion has shifted on Unity Posted: 30 Nov 2020 05:24 PM PST Unity outcry single handled changed AC from what we knew and loved into a full blown unrecognizable RPG. That not to say I haven't enjoyed the recent games, I truly have. But I genuinely never understood even back then the outcry of fans about Unity being bad because I enjoyed Unity when I first played it. I'm happy that people are going back and enjoying the experience as I had and now claiming it to be one of the best in the series. If only people didn't complain as much as we did... [link] [comments] | ||
| I've never EVER said this about an RPG before, but... the main story is too long Posted: 30 Nov 2020 02:48 PM PST I'm 70 hours into the game and I still have five (or more? not sure) alliance regions left to do. The problem isn't just that the main story is long, it's that there is barely a main story. Few of the regions are connected narratively-speaking; they are predominantly self-contained 3 to 7 hour mini-stories. It's a decent idea on paper, but it makes the "main story" feel bland, disjointed, weak, absent, etc.. I'd much prefer a singular story for 40 hours than 90 hours of mini-stories. Perhaps 3 big mini-acts would be fine - I just feel that 15 (or however many it is) is too many. The main story barely moves. Some of the arcs don't move the main story at all! That's narrative heresy. I'm doing the Yorkshire arc now, and honestly I've stopped doing exploration, wealth, artifacts, and mysteries because I just want to finish. I'm still enjoying the game, but I sort of want it to be over. I want better narrative payoff, and we don't really get consistent narrative payoff during the main story; not frequently enough at least. TLDR: This game is too long for its own good, and the lack of any major permeating narrative thread aside from "make friends" and "kill the Order" is burning me out long before the game is concluded. [link] [comments] | ||
| Do you prefer to 100% the game(s) before or after finnishing the story? Posted: 30 Nov 2020 06:47 PM PST Not talking about a specific AC game here. I tend to finnish the first areas 100%, then the longer I progress through the story the more I tend to rush it. Then I clear the map of the rest, and when reaching 100% I make sure my username checks out. What about you guys? [link] [comments] | ||
| Ubisoft, please add an option to switch sprinting into a hold action. Posted: 30 Nov 2020 11:32 PM PST There are options to switch between a toggle and a hold action in Valhalla for crouching, aiming and bringing up the quick wheel. I would love to have an option for sprinting too. Remapping the right trigger to sprint and then holding it would replicate the way it used to work in the older games. For me personally, I always liked it in the older games as it was a lot more active and involved. I'd really like an option to do that in Valhalla, especially now that we even have a dedicated sprint button that we can remap, after not having one at all in Origins and Odyssey. What do you think? [link] [comments] | ||
| Hoping for upgrades on the settlement Posted: 30 Nov 2020 08:09 PM PST In future updates I would LOVE to see specific and changing upgrades to your settlements. Like stone walls. Actual archer towers, upgrading your houses to bigger and more looking englaland vestes. Imagine the settlement with a actual defense. More than one ship. Stone walls, troops that guard it. Being able to buy and build more ships and do conquests with more than 1 longship. Don't know how the performance would get along with that (I think that's the biggest problem on ps4 but ps5 should be able to do it right?) it would be faaar more realistic. Maybe a bit more people and levels to the settlement, that it doesn't look that little and dead. [link] [comments] | ||
| Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Posted: 30 Nov 2020 10:38 AM PST I've seen tons of people, on this sub especially nitpicking over every detail and minor flaw of Valhalla. And there's definitely some valid criticisms to be had, no one would deny that. But what I feel like people are missing is this: We got an amazing game, with a great story, great graphics, and all kinds of new features, that's bigger than any other AC game so far. There's a ton of variety in the types of quests you have to do. Not to mention, almost all of the stuff people were complaining about from Odyssey was fixed. Yes, there are issues, but on the whole, they're minor. If you look for flaws or things to dislike in a game, I 100% guarantee you'll find them. And in doing so, you'll ignore every other great part of the game. It's good to provide feedback, but don't focus on the negative so much. [link] [comments] | ||
| I played Unity without any problems and found it to be my favorite assassin's creed game Posted: 30 Nov 2020 09:13 AM PST So I've played assassin's creed Unity and I heard the main reason most people didn't like it was that there were too much bugs and things that didn't work. Lucky as I am, I didn't experience any major bugs that hindered my experience and found it really fun. The setting, the "black box" assassination missions and my favorites, murder mystery cases. So is it really as bad as people say? And did you enjoy it as well? Looking forward to reading some answers. Peace Edit: I would love to answer to all of you but I must go. Thanks for a good discussion! [link] [comments] | ||
| Athenians Sing About Heroic Spartans Posted: 30 Nov 2020 10:09 PM PST I'm sure if you have played Odyssey for at least ~10 hours, you have heard the song that goes like "The bravest they fight to the death ... They carry the ... of Leonidas...". I could not transcribe the whole song. This song is among many that citizens play and dance to. My small nitpick is that it is not coded so even in the heart of Athens citizens may sing this song. Does someone have an explanation for this or can we add it to the basket of small details Quebeq missed? [link] [comments] | ||
| [Spoilers] Clarified: Faravid or Halfdan Posted: 30 Nov 2020 02:52 PM PST This decision had me stuck and confused for a good bit because what Eivor says does not match the dialogue prompts and all the articles/discussions online have been terribly misleading and shallow. I'm hoping to shed a lot of light on this intense mission with this post. Skip to OUTCOMES for how this affects alliances. As we all know, at one point in the Eurviscire arc, Eivor is forced to choose between siding with Halfdan or Faravid during an argument after the former finds out that the latter has been gifting him lead cups (and thus poisoning him, whether intentionally or not). Choosing 'Halfdan, you're insane' actually leads into Eivor defending Faravid's honor and saying that reason should guide decisions, not madness. Halfdan and Faravid argue for a moment before Faravid is banished and Eivor escorts him out the gates of Jorvik. Halfdan refuses to speak further at the moment. At the gates, Eivor asks Faravid whether he knew about the lead or not, to which he gives a non-answer (something along the lines of, "I hope we can raise our spears together again someday"). Choosing 'Faravid, stand down or fight me' actually leads into Eivor saying something along the lines of, "Traitors must be punished." You end up fighting Faravid. Halfdan steps in at the end and asks Faravid to stand up and fight him, but Faravid refuses, instead choosing to remain kneeling as he recalls fond memories with Halfdan before saying that they'll meet in Valhalla. Halfdan caves his head in with his hammer and kills him, seeming to immediately regret the decision. He offers Eivor his thanks and Eivor says she/he hopes they were both right about Faravid. OUTCOMES Regardless of which option you choose, you are able to secure an oath with Halfdan. Halfdan gave his word that if Eivor helped him weed out the traitor in his ranks (which turned out to be Ricsige), he would give them the alliance they wanted. This means that the choice you make is purely moral--whether Faravid lives or dies. (To clarify, he does not join you at Ravensthorpe if he lives. He likely leaves England entirely, from the sounds of his dialogue during exile). Neither option is better than the other in terms of game mechanics. Report back to Randvi in either case and do the short follow up quest (which is also obtained regardless of the choice you make). Faravid, guilty or not? This is where I do a bit of my own theorizing, which you can pick up or leave. I personally believe that Faravid did not knowingly poison Halfdan. He consistently proves his loyalty and if you choose to pick up the cup Halfdan throws earlier on, you can offer it to Faravid before the coronation--which he refuses and insists you keep. Why would he insist Eivor keep a lead goblet when he's clearly very fond of her/him? When he would have no reason to knowingly endanger Eivor? He isn't part of the order, after all, and Eivor poses no threat to him. Secondly, why would he roll over and allow himself to be killed so easily by Halfdan if his goal is supposedly to dethrone/kill him for the sake of Northumbria? And wouldn't a guilty person outright deny that they have done anything wrong when accused? Why the sad nostalgia? To me, his non-answers and willingness to die by Halfdan's hand mean he is wounded by the idea that an old friend would ever even think him capable of such things--the question is an insult to his honor and a stain on the trust he thought he had, and so he sees no reason to dignify it with an outright answer. Faravid's exile is the decision I choose to live with. Anyway, I hope this was more helpful than those half-hearted articles that absolutely did not aid me at all when I was faced with this decision myself. IMPORTANT EDIT: I've been informed by some players that Halfdan isn't showing up for the final battle if the player spares Faravid, despite the alliance being marked as made. Dev input on this would be great! [link] [comments] | ||
| A warning for completionist (AC Valhalla) NO SPOILERS Posted: 30 Nov 2020 08:40 AM PST After putting 82 hours into this game without seeing any spoilers online and getting very close to the conclusion of the story. I had a massive point spoiled BY THE GAME. I'm a completionist and have been completing all wealth, mysteries and artifact sin regions as the story takes me there. This includes killing members of the order. I collected the maximum amount of order amulet sand handed them to Hytham once you give him the maximum amount of amulets (which isn't even all the order members of you kill zealots) him and Eivor start talking about who the Father of the order is and talking about how he's dead. When I haven't even got that far into the game nor have I killed him. So be careful if you don't want any spoilers and do these things like I do. [link] [comments] | ||
| I thought combat was unfair... Until I becamea viking knitting enemies with 0two toothpicks Posted: 30 Nov 2020 01:51 PM PST Using two spears results in a fun knitting experience, borderline OP. I paired it with the dodge slow mo and red rune counter skills from the yellow skill tree, and the dual wield heavy weapon skill from the red skill tree. Some days I just remove one spear and use the shield to make things fair and make them feel "authentic" to the period. [link] [comments] | ||
| AC Valhalla Changing the Appearance of your Gear. Posted: 30 Nov 2020 09:38 PM PST Is there any way to make one item of gear appear as another but it's really not, you used to be able to do this in AC Odyssey I believe. Your not changing your gear, but making it appear as a different item. I hope this was clear enough, hard to explain, Thank you. [link] [comments] | ||
| Changing the different kind of bows during combat Posted: 30 Nov 2020 11:25 PM PST So, I´m prone to overlook some gameplay elements (dont ask how it took til I could switch arrows in odyssey I think?) But is there no option to switch through the different kind of bows? In origins and/or odyssey, you could do that on the fly, now, I have to go to the main menu when I run out of arrows mid fight. Do I, again, miss something obvious? [link] [comments] | ||
| Ubisoft kindly please remove the multiplayer related achievements in the older Assassins Creed games Posted: 30 Nov 2020 03:50 AM PST Title is pretty self explanatory. Like it can't be rocket science to remove a couple of achievements [link] [comments] | ||
| A friend of mine worked on this video... I thought you all might like to see! Posted: 30 Nov 2020 10:54 AM PST
| ||
| [Spoiler] How the team react to Anomalies in the Endgame Posted: 30 Nov 2020 02:07 PM PST Hey all, just a question about the anomalies in regards to Layla and Co reacting to them. Big endgame spoilers below, not just for anomalies, but the actual plot too. Anomaly Spolier: Obviously, with the final clip showing what Ragnarok actually looked like from an Isu perspective, not what Eivor envisions how it looks, we see that Loki manages to sneak in and insert his DNA into Yggdrasil. Massive Endgame Plot Spoiler: With the reveal that Eivor is Odin's DNA signature, Sigurd being Tyr's and Basim being Loki's, and the player taking control of Basim rather than Layla after she chooses to stay in Yggdrasil with Desmond, Basim goes through the anomalies as a sort of test to see if they worked as intended as opposed to Layla trying to figure out what they are. As a result of finishing the Hordafylke Arc before completing all the anomalies, I've unlocked the full video as Basim, who's literally physically experienced it thanks to the bleeding effect and has no reaction, and no team in his ear, there are no reactions to the video clip in any way. Anomaly Spoiler: Would someone be kind enough to share how Layla and the team react to the video showing what happened at Ragnarok? Thanks! [link] [comments] | ||
| [SPOILER] Valhalla should have been set in a different time (930-950s rather than 860s) Posted: 30 Nov 2020 09:14 AM PST So I managed to finish the 'main' campaign of Valhalla last night; conquering all of England for the Vikings. From the start I thought this a strange thing to be going for, since the designated enemy of the game was Alfred of Wessex, better known these days as "King Alfred the Great", who is most famous for halting the Viking invasion...thus I knew Eivor wasn't going to succeed in the end, even though the obvious fact that England isn't Norse or Pagan in the present day was already a bit of a giveaway. Anyway, the final level consisted of several small raids on settlements in Wessex, culminating in one lengthy fight where a few allies die, and in the aftermath, everybody celebrates because Alfred has fled; England has been conquered! A short while later, you find Alfred living a humble life in a small village, with him seeming quite pleased with how peaceful it all is. Seems like a decent high moment to finish on, right? Well...if you know your history, it's truly a bizarre place to finish things! See, Alfred was indeed chased into exile...for five months, during which time he was preparing to retake his kingdom, and at the end of this time he defeated the Vikings and forced their leader to convert to Christianity. Since this'd obviously be a downer for players after nothing but victories, the game randomly decides to finish BEFORE this can happen in order to give the illusion of a 'triumphant ending' for our...not particularly sympathetic protagonists. It's a strange choice, all things considered...imagine if you were watching a film about the American Revolution and it ended with the British defeating the Continental Army in battle and the leaders declaring the war was over...or a film about Napoleon where he captures Moscow in 1812 and the ending implies Russia has been defeated...or a film about World War II where it finishes with France being conquered by Germany! With that now said, I find myself wondering just why the game was even set in this time period...especially given that a number of videos have been made talking about the historic inaccuracies present in the game, with stave churches, large stone castles and certain weapons being present in Dark Ages England long before any of these things were invented. According to Overly Sarcastic Productions' video on the matter, this is because the game designers were trying to make a somewhat fantastical Viking game that featured all the iconic stuff regardless of historic accuracy...which strikes me as a really poor choice when one of the selling points for the series has always been a push for (mostly) accurate depictions of the past. So again, why it was so crucial to set the game around the time of the Great Heathen Army, as opposed to a later date when all the fanciful stuff they wanted would have existed? Eivor's settlers show up after the invasion has already begun; East Anglia and Northumbria have already been conquered, and Mercia is brought to heel as a part of the first mission in England, leaving just Wessex, which is set up as a huge looming threat, but...well, the game doesn't do a great job of establishing why Eivor cares about it so much, and it feels more like she's just 'offended' that Alfred is resisting the violent colonisation of his homeland (something presented as heroic and noble because English religions and customs just suck so much, you know?). Again, the first mission in England involves helping the leaders of the Great Heathen Army secure Viking control over the massive Kingdom of Mercia, and by that point Sigurd and Eivor have set up the small town they wanted to in an area that's far from the border (while oddly forgetting about their initial goal of creating a kingdom that they alone could rule)...if anything, the game should have ended there, but Eivor decides to join the others in conquering for the sake of conquering. I suspect the setting was an attempt at pandering to the fans of the Vikings TV series, as it covers a similar period of time, but with everything mentioned already, I feel like this was a poor choice on their part. Looking into the history of the era, I can see a later time period that I think would have worked far better...the waning days of the Kingdoms that the Great Heathen Army carved out. There's even a historic event that took place around this time that'd allow for a similar opening to Valhalla, albeit...less stupid (no fleeing to England after a temper tantrum about having to be a Jarl rather than a King and then proceeding to be a Jarl anyway). Let me paint a picture of this hypothetical story. It's 933; and King Harald Fairhair of Norway (who appeared in Valhalla as a young man) has just died of old age. His heir is his eldest son Eric Bloodaxe (who I would replace Sigurd with, while keeping Eivor as a loyal member of their household), but his throne is not secure, as his younger brother Haakon (who was raised in England for his safety and converted to Christianity) has returned to Norway with an army and the backing of Aethelstan, the first King of England. Harald quickly manages to undermine Eric's support, leaving him no choice but to flee the country with his family (including his wife Gunnhild, who was supposedly a sorceress), eventually (ten years later) making his way to what had once been the Kingdom of Jorvik (York) and proclaiming himself King "in the north" over the Anglo-Scandinavian populace that existed in the area as a result of years of cultural mingling (and who might have welcomed a Norse ruler)... So, think about what this gives us. Rather than a random viking and his adoptive sibling aggressively colonising England just because they lost a title, it's now an exiled prince and his court fleeing a brother who stole his crown, and setting themselves up in an existing Viking settlement that lacks a monarch. Rather than King Alfred of Wessex being a villain because he's opposing the conquest of his homeland, it's now the Kings of England as threats because they've aided the prince's brother AND are looking to take control of his new kingdom in Jorvik (plus, historically one of these Kings WAS in fact assassinated by a guy with a blade in a seemingly random attack...not too hard to imagine this being the work of one of your assassin allies in an attempt to take down the Order!). We've got a compelling story to get things started, enemies on all sides to make the stakes clear, and the Order of the Ancients could be inserted as a secretive group using Haakon's attempt to convert Norway to Christianity as a way of getting themselves into positions of power, giving Eivor a reason to go after them...now what about the gameplay? Well, it's not hard to imagine Eivor raiding settlements in England to weaken the English and gain loot, then travelling back to Norway to deal with Order members who are big in Haakon's court, plus extra small maps could be made for areas like Orkney to represent the areas that Erik fled to before settling in York, and perhaps even Normandy, Kiev and Constantinople! Oh, and Gunnhild supposedly being a sorceress? Wouldn't it make sense if she had a piece of Eden with her and used it towards the end of the game to pull some strings? To top it off, there'd be an opportunity to explore the hybrid Scandinavian cultures that had popped up in these locations, as well as explore how people deal with cultural migrations and overlapping claims to land...do the English have the better claim to Jorvik because it was historically theirs? Or do the Anglo-Scandinavians have the stronger claim because their culture is dominant now? The game wouldn't need to come down on either side, and could instead spark debate by presenting the points both sides make over the course of the game (especially if some of the Order members make a point about it)... As for the ending...well, Eric ended up being betrayed and ambushed by allies of King Eadred of England, who reconquered the north, but Haakon's attempts to convert Norway failed, which could be tied in with Eivor uprooting the Order in Norway. Eric's sons invaded and retook their father's throne, but plunged Norway into chaos and failed to hold onto the throne, which could lead to Eivor growing as a character and walking away from the blood feuds and fighting that dominated their early life in favour of joining the assassins properly and working in the shadows to make England and Norway better places for all...so it'd be a bittersweet ending in the end, but one that would fit with the series as a whole. It wouldn't leave much space for the Isu plot that was explored in Valhalla unless extensive reworks were made to it, but I suppose that'd still be a plausible option... [link] [comments] | ||
| Was Aletheia really sympathetic to humans? Spoilers for Valhalla and Odyssey. Posted: 30 Nov 2020 04:40 PM PST In Odyssey, Aletheia appears to be one of the only Isu that are sympathetic to humans. She talks about the Isu and their pretentious speeches in a negative light, and calls them out. Yet in Valhalla, she had a relationship with Loki, who was a known trickster, and was hated by Odin and co.? That's very out of place since you would think that she doesn't like the way the Isu did things, that she would definitely hate Loki. (Another question: was Loki "sympathetic" to humans as well?) She chose Layla as the Heir of Memories because she knew that she would bring her the Staff, yet never told her what her true purpose was. She apparently hid that. (Another question: What was Basim/Loki's goal? To simply kill Odin's sage (Eivor),then at some point get the Staff?) But if the goal was to get back to Loki, then why wait thousands of years for Layla, instead of just telling Kassandra, "bring the Staff to this guy: his name is Basim. He'll be alive in a few hundred years, so bring it to him." I get that Kassandra might have saw through Basim, then probably would have killed him since she has what is probably the most powerful POE at the time, so all the years of training wouldn't be any match for thousands of years of practice and learning with the Staff. (Sorry, getting sidetracked here.) So was Aletheia really sympathetic, or was she just lying? Trying to play up the image? Even going so far as to defend them in front of other Isu? [link] [comments] | ||
| Will I like odyssey if I'm liking Valhalla? Posted: 30 Nov 2020 10:20 PM PST Basically the title. Valhalla is the first AC game I've played since Black Flag. I've played a couple dozen hours of Valhalla and I'm really enjoying it. I noticed that Odyssey's ultimate edition is on sale and I was wondering if I should get it or not, or if Valhalla is drastically better and I won't enjoy Odyssey. [link] [comments] | ||
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla - every Ending explained. Spoiler warning!!! Posted: 01 Dec 2020 12:30 AM PST So I think it's been a fair amount of time since the game is out and I think it would be a good Idea to explain every ending the game has as well as some extra interesting stuff. Ok. Now the main story ending can be good and bad depending on your choices. It plays the same until the very end. For you to better understand this you must know that the Norse gods managed to survived Ragnarok (end of the world) by uploading themselves into Ygdrasill and later be reborn(read below about the asgard and secret endings). They later were reincarnated into the following characters we see in England Eivor-Odin Sigurd-Tyr Basim-Loki Halfdan-Thor Svala-Freya Good ending: we see Eivor and Sigurd leave for Norway. Sigurd has some visions about his past life as Tyr. They arrive at an Isu site where thy find a Device. That device is a gateway to Valhalla or better said, a simulation of Valhalla. Eivor and Sigurd enter the simulation and spend some time there (they eventually meet Svala (valka's mother) who appears as Freya in the simulation). Eivor realizes it's just a simulation and he convinces Sigurd to leave. When they wake up, Basim is there and attacks eivor. Now it's the interesting part. Basim is an reincarnation of Loki, but unlike the others, he keept all of his memories. Earlier we see him talking about a man that took him in, treated him as a brother, and later betrayed hin and killed everyone he loved. That man is none other than Odin. This whole thing happened in the Isu era. Basim suspected Sigurd of being Odin reincarnated at first. That's why he sails to Norway and becomes an apparent "ally". He wanted revenge. Now back to the part where Eivor is attacked by Basim. A boss fight takes place, and Basim tells Eivor: It wasn't sigurd, it was You. Meaning that Sigurd wasnt Odin, but instead Eivor was all along. He wanted revange for the bad things Odin did to his children. Somehow Eivor manages to seal Basim aka Loki in the valhalla simulation. From there he can send messages to Layla, as we can see at the beginning of the game. Sigurd seems happy with eivor and appoints him as the new Jarl of the raven clan and they both return to england (depending on the choices you made throughouts the story) Bad ending: same as the good ending, but sigurd is disappointed with Eivor and he choses to remain in Norway Modern Day ending: We see Layla and the team finding out about another solar catastrophe. The solar catastrophe is the event that happened millennia ago, and mostly eradicated the Isu. It is referred to as ragnarok by the norse people. At the end of Ac3, such a catastrophe should have happened again, but was stopped by Desmond. Now we Know desmond didn't stop it completely, but instead just delayed it. Layla travels to the Isu site in Norway. She enters the Valhalla Simulation and meets a man made out of light (or wathever). That man is none other than Desmond. After his death, he remained in the simulation, trying to find a future where Ragnarok (aka The solar catastrophe that he stopped at the end of Assassin's Creed 3 and eradicated the Isu a long time ago) will never happen again (doctor strange style) Layla choses to remain trapped in the simulation forever, in order to help desmond prevent ragnarok from ever happening again. We then see Basim escaping from the simulation. He grabs the staff of eden from the floor (Layla dropped it) and becomes young again. Here is another important part. He speaks to his Wife Angraboda the Giantess (Angraboda is Aletheia, the Isu helping Layla during Odyssey). We do not know for sure, but it seems Aletheia tricked Layla into helping her reunite with Loki(Basim) Basim then returns to North America, where he meets with Shaun and Rebecca. They explain to him how the hidden Ones became the Assassins. We then take control of Basim which will be the next modern day protagonist He then tells Aletheia *(trough the staff) that he needs only to find their children (Fenrir, Jormungandr and Hel). we do not know for sure, what Basim's plans are. He could be a Villain, but also a Hero Asgard Ending: Odin binds Fenrir (Loki's son) and sees a final vision of ragnarok. He and the rest of the Gods drink the water from Mimir's well and upload themselves to ygdrasill. They are later reborn. This ending is the same as the Secret Isu Ending, but it's represented based on the nordic beliefs. Secret Isu ending: this is the exact scene from the asgard ending, but instead we see how it truly was. In the Asgard ending we see the Isu being porttrayed as Nordic gods (with viking armor and stuff) but in this ending (The true ending) we see them in an Isu site, wearing Hight tech Isu suits, and instead of drinking mimir's water, they put some masks on, uploading themselves into Ygdrasill. Loki kills an Isu (Baldur, most likely) and uploads himself into Ygdrasill too. He is later reborn as Basim. Our modern day Protagonist Order Ending. How the templars were founded: this ending happens after Eivor kills all the members of the order. He meets Aelfred, who is revealed to be the grand master of the order. Aelfred admits to helping Eivor with clues (the poor soldier letters we recieved throughouts the game) becouse he hated their ways. He then states that he means to create a new order centered around god. That new order in none other than the TEMPLARS AS WE KNOW THEM it's not stated directly, but I can assure you that Alfred is Indeed the founder of the Templar Order His alias: Poor fellow soldier of Christ is simply another name for the Templar order. It's and historically correct fact that the templars indeed called themselves, Poor fellow soldiers of christ. And that is about everything. It my be confusing, but it's the best I can do. The endings were not an easy thing to understand for a lot of people, but luckily, I've got your back! [link] [comments] | ||
| Not a fan of the wildlife AI in Assassin's Creed Origins Posted: 30 Nov 2020 04:12 PM PST As some people here know, I finally started playing Origins and I've beaten the first two sequences if we can call them that (I don't know if this game even has sequences anymore). The world is beautiful, but one thing I gotta say is I'm just not a fan of the AI for the hostile wild animals. They all seem to be divided into two categories- either they take "jabs" at you with bites, or they charge you with swipes. I know I know, they're animals- they don't exactly have a diversity of weapons or fighting styles at their disposal. But maybe less is more would've been better- I don't see a difference between lions, leopards, and hyenas or a difference between hippos and crocodiles. Compare this to the Red Dead series, where every beast felt like a different entity that attacked differently. Am I being too harsh, or did anyone else feel this way? [link] [comments] |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Assassin's Creed. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment