Senior Member
Well, well - I expected to find praise for the artwork,which this game actually is, and that it will most likely be as much fun to play as Origins, if not even more so. The team, who made Syndicate made this one, and Syndicate is by far my favorite AC game, so I will most likely enjoy Odyssey as well. I think as well, that a lot of the newer players do not care much about the present day story - I don't know, why we still have that at all - it brings nothing to the experience IMO. I like AC games for the beautiful settings and it's excellent parkour, fluent game play and combat, excellent voice acting, wonderful cut scenes and overall the whole setting of the game world - and I love that I can finally play with a female character, Kassandra, who's figure and looks are well designed, very natural and beautiful, but as well believable in her role as mercenary. She is certainly not a barbie doll, but still an attractive woman - it will be fun to discover more of her personality while playing the game.
I am really looking forward to it - and I don't really care about the pieces of Eden stuff anyway - I take it, when I have to, but otherwise, I couldn't care less. I buy and play AC games for their beauty and game play, not for the lore behind it. And that it is becoming more and more of an RPG is a good move IMO.
Senior Member
Missing the point. You're confusing 'quality' with what consitutes an AC game. Qualiity wise, the series has been on the decline since Revelations, yes, but whether the games are good or not is not what my post was about. I was referring purely to the lore and premise of the Assassins / Templar conflict which was still very present in Revelations despite the game, itself, being quite poor.Originally Posted by MageAquarius20 Go to original post
The introduction of the Sage was pointless. It made the plot more convoluted and was yet another way of tricking hardcore fans into thinking the story line was advancing when really it was Darby making up random nonsense as he went along. Additionally, you are not addressing my point regarding Edward. Edward killing Assassins because of ignorance is about a fictional character making a fictional decision in a fictional story. I don't care about that. What I was referring to was the decision making of the writers. Black Flag should not have contained the Assassin's Creed title or, at least, it shouldn't have been marketed as one. If they had been more candid and said "look guys, you're not playing as either side, you're a pirate with his own agenda caught in the middle" and called the game 'A Pirate's Creed' the I would have accepted it. Writers can tell whatever story they like. Just don't lie about it to your consumers. That's where Black Flag contrasts to Odyssey because even from the way the narrative director speaks about it she is not selling it as an AC game but a Ancient Greek game with some references to the First Civilisation. They're not going on about it being the origins of the Assassin every 5 minutes and paying lip service. It is what it is.
No, it was the Origin story of Bayek and that's not what was sold to fans during marketing. Ashraf pulled this same stunt during Black Flag's campaign. He doesn't seem to actually like the Assassin lore and instead opts to make historical epics and then tack on the Assassin element at the end so he can say, "See! It is an AC game because the protagonist does eventually become an Assassin!" The way the formation of the Creed happened came out of nowhere and was forced. Ubisoft are obsessed with getting new players on board which is why they refuse to move the story forward. Origins was yet another way of retelling the story from scratch, just like Black Flag.Well Because it was supposed to be the Origin story of the Assassins like we know from the first game, not the overall creation of the Assassins,
I agree here. It's clear the devs wanted to make a game about Greece or Rome instead. Also, the time period they chose technically isn't 'Ancient' Egypt anyway.Origins wasnīt Ancient Egypt because the devs were more interested in Rome than Egypt, which you can add as another reason to dislike Origins,
You're confusing the developers with the marketing directors and they are not the same. I can guarantee that Ubisoft's marketing department would have pushed for the male character in the trailers in order to appease a certain demographic minority that hates women in anything significant... The devs are not the marketing team. Also, you conveniently leave out that the walkthrough they showed on stage in front of the entire world, as in the gameplay, itself,was all Kassandra...They are so proud that they didnīt even marketed her properly in the trainer and plays secound fiddle to the Male protagonists, so no they aren't so proud as you make it out to be. If they were, then we would have seen more of her already, i mean recycling the choice of playing a female or male hero, why not just make one female Assassin instead like a Korinthian spy, they were the most beautiful woman in Greece according to their writings after all.
From people who have played the game at E3, they all agree that Kassandra's animations and face model seem to have got more care than her brother's.
Senior Member
Assassin's Creed is my favorite series of all time.
I was in the forums this time last year tearing Origin apart.
I was wrong.
The changes made Origin my favorite AC game to play since AC3.
The RPG elements, the loot, the levels, the spongy enemies that make you come back later. The eagle to help scout locations.
I loved it.
It was leaked years ago that there will be a trilogy made in this style, so Im not surprised or disappointed that Odyssey looks like more of the same..
However more red flags are popping up.
Despite loving ACO.. the story took a major hit..
And I believe this time its going to take an even bigger hit with choices...
I get they are going for a Witcher 3 thing with this new direction..
But while Witcher might tell a bunch of great small stories in a massive world.. the big picture story is pretty mediocre...
Assassins Creed used to make me think.. run to the message boards with my theories...
but now I just run to it with complaints that it isnt what it used to be.
I can already tell that this wont be a special experience...
Is it just me, or are the combat animations plucked right from origins?
Yet every assassin up to this point has had their own flavor...
I dont like that personality is being stripped from our assassins witch choice etc....
I dont quite like choice in games that lack narrative focus
I was wrong about Origin so Ill trust...
But I just hope this is more of a test and you wait for feedback before you pack the 3rd game with all of this choice etc...
Member
Senior Member
Member
I think somehow the devs should bring some clarification to the whole franchise and where it will go in the future. At least for those players and fans that still believe it will go back to the good old AC2 days which will never happen again. Maybe that helps them to finally understand that there will always be a change.
Am I by the way the only one thinking that Alexios looks a loot like Crixus from the Spartacus series? At least regarding the face.
Senior Member
I LOVE how this looks so far... I've watched E3 every day, the 1st thing I said when I saw AC's trailer was "300!!!"
I like some VARIETY, it keeps a franchise from being stale & totally predictable.
Brotherhood may always be my favorite AC title... but Origins is at least tied with it (played it twice in a row). Greece is my 2nd favorite location after Egypt, so I'm in on it, period. I would LOVE if they brought back chain kills too.
Maybe Mercs can replace Origins' Phylakes concept as they're scattered thru the game hunting us down? Would LOVE that!! & I'd love some kind of Poison we could use too. I had too much fun using it in Origins.
The fighting looks great with new moves including that Sparta kick. The beach brawl looked awesome & I remember asking for more of those horde fests in previous games. Why are people saying Stealth is gone? I don't take a brief gameplay piece and base the entirety of a game on that as if what I don't see, doesn't exist. ??
& since it's set 400 yrs prior, it would be ok not having our usual assassin entrapments - we'll probly have some equally awesome weapons to that time period - maybe there WILL be a hidden blade... it's so early to condemn this based on what we've seen and haven't seen so far.
Senior Member
THAT ^^Originally Posted by Lysette88 Go to original post
The more time passes & younger gamers get, the less they need to deal with present day anything from early AC. They aren't going to understand it without knowing the past games meanings, so are they going to be forced to buy/rent the early games to understand all of that?? I don't even remember any of it now, or care. Each new Assassin brings new things to each game to make them unique to that game - like the whole Pirate/ship thing was to Black Flag. It wasn't my thing, but it was a very good game.
Even in Origins which I adore, I had no clue what the messages meant from the people before? I'd let that play & go make some lunch lol
Just play the older games if you want that & Desmond. It was awesome & had its place, but I don't think it's going to go over well for newer AC fans coming in who have no idea what any of that meant 7 yrs ago.
Lastly, in the E3 gameplay seg, they're obviously going to be showing ACTION scenes for the show... people are running with a short clip they see as if it showcases the entire game & all you'll have in your arsenal.
??? The complaining blows my mind sometimes.
I
Member
We have seen 30 minutes of gameplay. That's hardly enough to conclude that this is not an AC game. Unlike most fans of the series, I'm excited about this new direction of the AC franchise. I don't like the dialog options so much as they don't tell the story of the ancestor assassin. And I miss the big assassination missions like the one from Unity where you stab the guy through the confession booth but I'm all for doubling down on making this an RPG. We still have eagle vison, parkour, close and ranged combat. There's still have modern day elements as well as first civ stuff and they are minimal enough that causal AC fans can ignore it and get back to the game. I've seen complaints about not having a hidden blade but remember that Bayek didn't start off with one. Darius killed Leonidus before this game takes place so we know that hidden blades exist. There's complaints about not having hoods. There are hoods in the game. I'll admit that social stealth is gone and I miss that too. This game has synch points so you know there will be leaps of faith. Kotaku has reported that this game will really delve into First Civ and modern day. Also there is a really good article on Forbes.com that theorizes that this game will show us the formation of the Order. That would be cool since we saw the formation of the Brotherhood in Origins. For me this game is still an AC game, Ubisoft just took the time to give it more depth. I have 180 hours in Origins because it was so much more than seven cycles of synch point, trail mission, steal some intel, rescue an informant then stab the Templar. What is an AC game? Is it sneak and stab for 12 hours or is it the story about the struggle between order and free will? I think once that is defined then the argument that fans have will go from "this is not an AC game" to "this doesn't play like an AC game." Then the argument will be valid. But why not wait until we get more info about the game before taking pitchforks to Ubi Quebec..
