#i thought like aya was able to move on more than bayek so it was kinda crucial to bayeks growth that he got that kill but i digress

[ye-bloodeh-liar]

I just finished AC Valhalla – A résumé.

I finished the "main story" of Assassin's Creed Valhalla. These are some thoughts of mine. (This was saved in my drafts for two weeks or so. But my stance hasn't altered. Actually, I'm even angrier now.)

Disclaimer: This obviously contains some spoilers here and there. You've been warned, but tbh, who even cares about the story at this point. Also, I know I don't have many followers, and I suspect none of the few that will come across this post will actually be interested in it. That said, if you like reading people's rants about things, regardless of your interest in video games, this might be something for you. I just needed to get this out of my system somewhere. This is a rant (well, vent? I'm venting, I guess) written as it came to my mind. There's no real structure, I think. Sorry for that in advance.

After Origins, which I thoroughly enjoyed and actually played again between Odyssey and Valhalla, and Odyssey, which's name was perfectly fitting since it felt like a fucking odyssey to grind through, I hoped, actually, I was convinced, Valhalla would right Odyssey's wrongs. You see, Odyssey had one big problem for me: It did none of the things that made and still make me love Origins. In short: The world was massive, but felt copied and pasted, uninteresting to explore and lifeless. Basically, it was a lot of green sprinkled with some olive branches. A lot of the times the only way to know roughly where I am was pulling up the map because based on my surroundings, I could've been anywhere. Compared to the intriguing world of Origins, where you always knew in which area of the map you currently were, this was a shitshow. I mean, just walking through the desert in Origins had more atmosphere than the whole city of Athens (the main fucking city) could ever muster up. (Oh, remember the times of AC Brotherhood, where Rome actually felt like a city even though it wasn't actually humongous like the new games are? Or how atmospheric the whole of AC II was? I mean, Venice? Hello? M a s t e r p i e c e) But I can overlook that. The combat didn't feel heavy, or to put it better, "impactful" like it did in Origins, but more like poking the enemies to their deaths with something that made sword-y sounds. But I can overlook that. The loot system improved a bit, in the sense of giving the option to modify your loot and being able to combine different armor pieces, however, Origins outfit-system was more up my alley. But I can overlook that. Funnily enough, compared to its predecessor, Odyssey looked worse. In Origins the fabric of your outfit look like actual fabric and, I can't stress this enough, waved in the wind. In Odyssey everything felt more static and somehow "fake". But I can overlook that. To me, Origins' story was masterfully done. Personally, I'd say, that this is the closest we've ever gotten to the Ezio-Trilogy. The voice acting was top notch. Bayek was a great character, and the side characters like Aya/Amunet were equally intriguing. I still remember the first time I saw the first confession cutscene after killing Medunamun. It gave me shivers and goosebumps and got me excited for what was about to come. What I want to say with this, is that Origins made me care; care about its characters, care about their backstory and motives, care about the world, etc. After I had finished the DLC The Hidden Ones I felt like I had actually witnessed the igniting spark of something epic, namely the Assassin Brotherhood, in such a chilling way, even though they basically were just chillin' in a cave. Because that's what character building gives you: payoffs. Well, Odyssey did none of that. All it did made me care about was to get all the loot, because that's what my mind always goes for in any game (I'm that kind of stupid ape). I didn't care about what would happen in the end – I just wanted to get there. I wanted to know how the story would end, but in whichever way it would, I knew I wouldn't care for it in the sense of being disappointed or yearning for a different outcome for the character I was so invested in, because, as I said, nothing got me invested in the character(s) in the first place. That's what bugged me the most about Odyssey. Not the flimsy feeling combat, not the husk of a world I found myself in, not the downgrade in design and animation, etc., but the lack of care it invoked.

Now, when Valhalla was originally announced, I was excited as I could be for a video game. Ubisoft was clearly aware of their mistakes with Odyssey and tried to show that they're willing to listen to their fanbase. A world where every area has its own identity? Sounds great. Heavy combat? Hell yeah. Gear and loot that actually matters and is special (unlike in Odyssey where after a few hours of playing you find yourself carrying the same fucking bow 25 times)? Oh my. Choices not for the sake of choices, but story? Yes please. I mean, if you have to implement choices. Even though choices don't really make sense in Assassin's Creed, but that's another topic.

Well, did it deliver (for me)? No. And to be completely honest, I prefer Odyssey, even as the grindfest that it is, over Valhalla, and me replaying Odyssey seems a lot more likely to me, than going through all of Valhalla again. I'm not going to list all of the points mentioned above again in full detail: The world is a bit more intriguing than Greece, but a shadow of what Egypt was. The combat feels heavy, yet every weapon looks too big (????) and it still feels a bit off. My biggest grudge of the minor points is actually the look/the graphics: How on earth does Valhalla manage to look less real than Origins? The fur and pelts on the armor, every piece of cloth, i mean just e v e r y t h i n g looks somewhat plasticy (at loss for a better word here; just compare Origins' outfits in motion to Valhalla's) Anyway, let's get to the real problem here, because all boils down to the point I've mentioned before: Invoking care.

This became very apparent to me after forging the fourth (?; was it the fourth? They all blur together. That's how e n t i c i n g they are. Great.) alliance or so. I didn't give a single fuck about the characters in those arcs. It was very clear that they'd be soon replaced by other characters in the next alliance's arc, which I probably wouldn't care for either, especially, since they all felt somewhat the same: empty. Alliances felt like checklists to do. Even Wincestre, which had an interesting beginning, somehow managed to loose all of its "darkness" after the first two quests. But I could overlook the dreary sidequest-like alliance arcs, if they served the main storyline in some way or form. Now you might ask, what main storyline? E x a c t l y. Looking back, there is none. At least not really. And there where a lot of times playing the game where I found myself wondering, if this alliance-arc-thing I was currently dragging myself through was in fact meant to be the actual story. But it shouldn't be. Was it? I have no fucking clue. My conclusion on what Valhalla's main overarching story is, is what follows:

Eivor's parents got killed when he was a child (never seen before lol), got adopted, and is now part of the Raven clan with his "brother" Sigurd//Sigurd comes home from some raid with the Assassins Basim and Hytham//(Eivor gets the Hidden Blade; I mean, this is an Assassin's Creed game. Big moment. Done in 2 seconds.)//Sigurd and Eivor aren't happy with the new King of Norway.//Sigurd and Eivor fuck off to England (with Basim and Hytham) to set camp there.//Eivor starts to forge alliances throughout England to make his clan's hold on England stronger.// Sigurd and Basim do their own thing.//Eivor meets Sigurd and Basim two or three times throughout his alliance forging.//Basim seems a bit off.//Sigurd says that he was told (by Basim?) that he is a descendant of the gods.// Sigurd wants to "pursue his destiny"// (sidenote: the last few things are all within one (!) short cutscene in a small house. d e v e l o p m e n t.)//Sigurd gets captured and tortured and loses his hand.//Eivor rescues Sigurd.// Sigurd is back in the settlement.//Sigurd distrusts Eivor because Eivor doesn't believe Sigurd and Sigurd thinks Eivor wants to take his title as the jarl (jarls are the bosses of settlements).// And then the end sequence hits. This is where I want to go into somewhat detail again. We go from Sigurd distrusts Eivor to "Eivor, I don't wanna be the boss of the town, so I don't hold a grudge anymore, let's go back to Norway and I'll show you I was right all along" like it's nothing. It's literally just that: You walk up to Sigurd, he says this (more or less) and you sail away. Again: development is taken very seriously in this game. Honestly, at this point I didn't even know that this was going to trigger the ending. My genuine thoughts were "Oh my, finally, after all this grinding, the story is going to start." when in reality of course, ironically, it was going to end. Absolute belter. So you sail to Norway with Sigurd, which takes fucking forever, because OF COURSE you have to sail (for everyone who didn't play the game, yes, sail, that means looking at a viking longship while occasionally moving the stick slightly to change its directions slightly) to your original settlement in Norway, for what feels like far too long, only to say Hi to your dad. Fucking lost it. I thought we were going to assassinate the King? Nah bruv let's just have some quick family talk instead. Some action? Nah. Just get back to the longship. A N D S T A R T S A I L I N G A G A I N. Where? Just around the curve of our settlement in Norway. Yes, they pulled the old trick of the ending is literally just right around the corner of your starting position hehe. Absolute belter. Is this to make it seem like something is about to happen? The calm before the storm? It doesn't work like that. Well, then you actually sail through a storm (lol), which doesn't matter, because Sigurd just says "Let's keep going" and, well, you keep going. Also, to this point the weather conditions have never affected neither Eivors health, nor the ship in any way whatsoever, so why should I be impacted by a storm now? Like, it's a nice thing for atmosphere, but at least make the ship harder to steer or something. Then you walk up a mountain. Funnily enough Sigurd walks in manner that shows that the walk against the storm isn't easy, whereas you, hah, you can just yeet yourself up that mountain like nothing. I could sprint up there. Fucking sprint. Anyway, Eivor and Sigurd enter the Isu temple, because of course, we had to throw an Isu temple in there, I mean, i t ' s A s s a s s i n ' s C r e e d. Was it hinted at before in the story? Not really. Were we chasing or searchig for it? Nah, better get that next alliance going. It just suddenly was. Again: development. So we walk to the main platform of the temple and activate the machine and bam we're in Valhalla (because at some point Ubisoft realised that maybe they should include what is literally in the name of the game). Again, were we looking for Valhalla? Like not in the sense that every viking was, but more in the sense

of was it the main objective of the game? Did Eivor look for a way to Valhalla? Was there anything that led us here other than Sigurd having had a few dreams (that only got mentioned, like, twice?) and being influenced into thinking he was a demigod or something? Nope, Eivor was looking for that next alliance to forge. So, Eivor realises that his experience of Valhalla is fake and he wants to get out. But fake-Odin doesn't want to let him go. In a really weird cutscene (jump to 6:30), Eivor eventually escapes Odin and enters a door with his settlement-family (look, I'm all here for metaphors, but this, this is just utter rubbish. It just doesn't make sense, and there is no payoff whatsoever). Odin actually had a build-up of some sort. In every assassination sequence he's there and talks with Eivor. I actually thought there would be some cool payoff/ending/reveal here. But nah, this ain't it chief. Yet somehow, until here, I had hope. I thought maybe now, building on all this confusion, there's gonna be a relatively good ending. Something enticing. Something that made everything somewhat worthwile. And Ubisoft went: Lol nah. So, you're out of the Isu machine again (for all the non-AC-peoples here: basically like the matrix. Eivor gets hooked up to the machine and experiences alternate reality: Valhalla), and Basim is there. What a twist. The guy that showed up like three times and went from friendly in the first time to super suspicious (like glaring-in-your-face-suspicious) in the two-or-so other major cutscenes he was in, has now been revealed as the enemy. Congrats to that. What a twist. The thing is, and this bothers me a lot actually, it could have been anyone there. It didn't need to be Basim. It wouldn't have felt out of place if it wasn't him. Why? Because Ubisoft failed terribly at making you connect to any character and at building any actual story (or character). It could have been Gunnar, the friendly black-smith in our settlement, and it would have been as fitting as Basim. Then Basim says that this is "for his son". Ah yes, the lost son of Basim, which was mentioned once. Right. Eivor defeats Basim by hooking him up on the Isu machine and gets back to the settlement with Sigurd (in my ending at least. There seems to be a possible ending in which Sigurd doesn't come back.) Cut to the modern day, where Layla now knows the coordinates of the Isu temple, goes there, hooks herself up to the machine, becomes the overseer of time with the other overseer of time which already was hanging out there (I mean yeah, great idea, terrible execution. Build it up, then you can have a payoff. This was just straight outta nowhere, and who cared about Layla anyway.) Anyway, meanwhile Basim, who was still hanging on that machine a fuck ton of years later, pops off, and is now living in the modern day. The idea here is, that we lost the hero (Layla) which caused the (just established) vilain (Basim) to do his fuckery in the modern day. But why should I care? Basim was basically nonexistent in the basically nonexistent story and suddendly I should feel sad or shocked, because he's in the modern day? Is this supposed to be intriguing? And yeah, Layla is "gone". Layla, who had no character building over three fucking games. Why should i be bothered? Why should I care about anything that just happened? Remember when a side character (Lucy) died in AC Brotherhood? That was intriguing. Why? Because they built her as a character we (Desmond) trusted, even though it was in the modern day (which no one really cares about in AC). And this is why Valhalla broke me and Odyssey didn't. Valhalla failed to make me care on a much deeper level. It's just a lot of nothingness. Empty characters in a nonexistent story. And by nonexistent, I mean non-built at all. When I play the game now, I have no actual reason, and throughout the game never actually had any actual reason, to continue. It was a chore. I didn't bother if after three hours of grind I would eventually get a mini-snippet of a husk of a story, and neither do I care now. Everything in

this game is so devoid of sparking curiosity and screams of lacklusterness to the point where I don't even know what I have actually expierenced. For fuck's sake Ubisoft, make me care again. At least once in 40 hours.

May I sum up Valhalla's "story" and content in the glorious words of Catherine Tate: Am I bovvered? The answer, sadly, is a holistic no.

[jacob-mydear]

I really hate Aya. I don't like her. She never wanted to talk to Bayek about the lost of her son. I don't think she really cared for Bayek. I am so glad I got to play as Bayek, as I connected to him a lot more than I ever did to Aya. Also glad they divorced. She was toxic for him and about time he realized it. And yes, I have completed the game.

Thanks for the Ask and for expressing your thoughts, Anon! Because I do enjoy discussing the characters and stories in Assassin’s Creed, especially over subjects that are much disputed on – in this case, Aya’s portrayal in Assassin’s Creed Origins.

Pictured above: Actual footage of me talking about ‘Assassin’s Creed’ lore and characters

[ SPOILERS FOR ‘ASSASSIN’S CREED ORIGINS’ FROM HERE ON ]

While I understand your dislike for Aya (and I know for a fact you are not alone in this), I personally think Ubisoft may have done Aya’s character a huge disservice with her portrayal in-game. I have not yet read the ‘Desert Oath’ novel, or the upcoming Origins comics, so I’m not sure how Aya’s character is portrayed in those transmedia, but I feel we were given far too little exposure to her character in the main game. And this has been detrimental to her portrayal as a character, resulting in players unable to sympathize with her.

People deal with grief and loss in different ways. Bayek was open to talking about the death of their son as a way of moving on and healing, but Aya, I felt, was more keen on suppressing her emotions, and concentrating on goals to distract from the pain she’s trying to bury and avoid. Kind of ironic that Bayek and Aya were hunting down the ‘Masked Ones’ when Aya herself was wearing a mask – one of detached, ruthless efficiency, hiding the broken and grieving person behind it. It’s not exactly healthy, but I understood that was how Aya dealt with her pain: by burying it until she was ready to confront it.

I would have really appreciated Ubisoft showing us scenes of Aya as a mother, the same way we saw Bayek as a father – nurturing and teaching and bonding with Khemu, her pride at seeing him grow, and tender moments when they are all together as a family. I wanted to see her reaction to Khemu’s death – the sort of grief-stricken horror a mother faces when confronted with her greatest fear; seeing Bayek come home with the lifeless body of their child in his arms.

We saw Bayek vulnerable and emotional over Khemu’s death (powerfully acted by Abubakar Salim, in one of the most impactful and visceral performances I’ve ever seen in AC); we saw him wracked by grief and guilt and raw despair – but we never got to see that side of Aya.

By hiding Aya’s vulnerabilities, weaknesses and emotional development, Ubisoft reduced the character to just a caricature. I don’t know the reason why Ubi made this narrative decision … Perhaps Ubi only wanted to show their female characters as nothing but strong, proactive, capable and efficient, to make her seem admirable, but it backfired, stripping Aya of her humanity and making her less sympathetic to the player.

I would also loved to have seen more of Aya’s anger at Cleopatra’s betrayal, and her rage at herself over her misplaced faith in Cleopatra. Yes, Cleopatra did indeed lead Egypt to greatness as Aya had hoped, but the trade-off was that Cleopatra sided with Flavius, the murderer of Khemu, putting the political interests of Rome over the personal vengeance of her Medjays who served her loyally for so long. I wanted to have seen Aya wrestle with that conflict, which I also thought would have added more dimension to her character.

And that kinda leads me into my next point: Aya is more far-sighted and politically-aware than Bayek, proving her merit as a character. While Bayek was content to let things die with Flavius, mistakenly thinking that their quest was over – Aya knew that the influence of the Order of the Ancients would only continue to grow if Caesar was allowed to live. Bayek would never have decided to go to Rome. Aya’s decision to cut down one of the Order’s most powerful and influential figures shows that she had proper foresight on the machinations of the Order to stop them. If the Brotherhood are going to be strong and be able to defend the people from the oppression of those in power, they’ll need to understand how those in power work, and how they gain power. The Brotherhood wouldn’t go very far without Aya’s insight and leadership.

I was personally heartbroken over Bayek and Aya’s separation. I honestly felt like they cared deeply for each other, but their goals were too far apart and they were already walking different paths, so their separation from each other was sad but necessary. It’s a case where two equally strong, emotionally-mature individuals recognized they needed to prioritize doing the right thing over their own personal happiness.

But we do know from Layla’s experience in the Modern Day that Bayek and Aya ended up entombed together in the same cave, so maybe they reconciled? I guess we’ll find out in upcoming materials, such as the Origins comics and the Hidden Ones story DLC! 😊

Thank you again for expressing your feelings about this, Anon! 😊 And again, I do not intend to change the way you feel about Aya as a character, but I do hope I managed to give some insight into why I thought she was portrayed this way.

Pictured above: Co-founder of the proto-Assassin’s Brotherhood; mother to a murdered son; wife to an estranged husband; protector of the people and champion of justice; Aya of Alexandria; The Hidden One, Amunet.

[love-fireflysong]

Another Assassins Creed is in the bag!

In a highly appropriate and ironic (at least to me) outcome, the first game to be completed in the year 2018 was Assassin's Creed: Origins. And I didn't just beat the game... I platinumed it.

While I enjoyed the game immensely, there was a few things I wish had been touched on more or even added. Like Layla. From what I understand I'm one of the few people that actually enjoys the present day storyline. And I just wish more had been done with her. While it was a step back to the roots with being able to actually move and not just watch from a camera or being hacked, it still could have been so much more. I mean, the moment I saw the computer I just got so excited, I thought the humerous emails were back but there was nothing. There wasn't even a chance for conversations to build Dee and Layla's characters, and after the events about halfway through the game, I lost even that. Not to mention the fact that the fate of Rebecca wasn't even mentioned. I mean, I understand why it wasn't, it would just come entirely out of left field otherwise considering no one except for old WM would have known and why would he say anything about it, Layla wouldn't have cared either way. The only reason I even know Rebecca is still alive is cause I read the Last Descendants novels, but I'm sure not everyone read those so the fact remains that Rebecca's fate is still left unexplained after two years since Syndicate's release.

That being said the reappearnce of old WM was a nice surprise at the end. Just wish more had been done with the ending for Layla.

The only other thing that was missing for me was I think an issue with almost everyone: the database. From what I understand, Ubisoft is releasing an interactice database early this year (which will be pretty fucking cool, don't get me wrong) but the lack of it still hurt. The history nerd inside of me cried everytime I met someone or passed by a building and I couldn't go look up more information on them. And once again, I understand why there is none storywise. It's confirmed early in the game that the only people working on this project are Layla (a computer engineer) and Dee (a nurse), neither huge historians from what I understood, and they're both keeping this hidden from Abstergo so there isn't exactly a historian on hand to make a database as they go along. But the exclusion of it just felt wrong.

Also, some endgame spoilers now, but Aya's tomb just doesn't make sense anymore. It was shown that Aya ran off to Rome to make a bureau there while Bayek stayed behind to make one in Memphis. And after the events of the game, they broke up their marriage and I'm assuming she died in Rome. So why was her body buries with Bayek's? Unless something happened way later and they made up, she shouldn't be there. And it wasn't Bayek's second wife or anything, cause Layla was able to see Aya's memories from the sample she took from the mummy.

That being said, Bayek was adorable. I loved his interations with children and I hope he got his own son or daughter later on. The fact that women also played a huge part in this game, being more often than not the most driven and badass characters was nice. I like to think that Bayek's bureau was made of mostly women, seeing as they were more often than not the ones who went on a muderous rampage of revenge while the men tended to stay behind and cried. It was nice.

[timemachinegirl]

Open world rpgs are among my favorite type of video games, and when I first read rumors that the next Assassin’s Creed game would be centered in Egypt, I could not contain my excitement. Thankfully, the 10th installment in the franchise does not disappoint. Between what has made the franchise generally successful in the past and some new additions, Assassin’s Creed Origins has firmly established itself as one of the more polished games in the franchise.

Story

Set in ancient Egypt, Origins offers players the opportunity to take part in the actual origin story of the assassins. Bayek, a Medjay responsible for the welfare of the people in a social sense, is a man led by revenge. This rage leads Bayek to fight against Ptolemy XIII and the Order of the Ancients, a mysterious group of masked men responsible for abducting Bayek and his son. Eventually, Bayek enters into the favors of Cleopatra who seeks to gain power from her younger sibling, Ptolemy. Along with the help of his wife, Aya (at times playable), Bayek manages to manipulate the political environment of the region, which includes interactions with the Greeks and even Julius Caesar, for the benefit of his revenge.

Overall, the story of Origins is strong and compelling. Several moments pulled on my emotions and the greater arc of the narrative balances political messages with the personal stories of a man seeking to restore order both on a personal level and nationally. A number of the quests, both from the main story and side narratives, explore emotionally charged matter to keep the player engaged with the struggles of Egypt’s people. With each quest, I felt that I was helping someone, that my actions had impact even in the corner of some small village in the desert.

Stealth & Combat

A welcome change to the franchise comes in the form of combat. As always, stealth plays a significant part in AC games, but in Origins, Bayek feels a bit “heavier” than other assassins. His movement is slower, and his stride lumbering. While perfectly capable of stealth, I felt as though Bayek was meant for combat, which was fine by me. He’s aggressive and can perform combo, quick, and heavy attacks on enemies. His shield may protect him for a time against lunging enemies or when up against multiple foes, but Bayek can also dodge their attacks or take advantage of more stealthy options.

Initially, Bayek won’t be very successful fighting too many enemies at once, and you’ll need to watch your approach. A number of weapon types can be used (dual swords, heavy blades, heavy blunts, regular swords, scepters, sickle swords and spears) and are in relative abundance throughout the world along with a variety of bows. Each weapon will also have a stat or two such as poison or critical hit. Of course the standard hidden blade is a must and becomes available after a time.

The game also has a leveling system which lets you unlock new abilities and cater to your individual play style. This progression system plays into which weapons are usable at your current level and now come in common (blue), rare (purple), and legendary (gold) form. Each weapon will be at a certain level that can be upgraded at any time to match Bayek’s level. Weapons can be upgraded as many times as you like, so hold onto those legendaries even if they’re level 1.

And as with another Ubisoft franchise, Far Cry, players have options for completing objectives. You can use your eagle, Senu, and her eagle vision to scope out the area, whether it be a military outpost or a bandit camp. Move in stealthily, release a caged lion, or charge in lighting oil jars as you go. The options are yours for the making.

World & Activities

Outside of Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag‘s world, Origins is my favorite. Admittedly, I have a bias toward Egypt. I’ve always wanted to travel there, and I’ve collected information on the Sphinx as an archetype for a few years now, so that may have impacted my excitement for this game. However, it is undeniable that much of the world is beautiful and appears alive and authentic.

Anyone familiar with an Ubisoft game map will find much familiar with Origins‘. Icons denote the locations of cities, outposts, tombs, and other points of interest. Despite the desert local, the game is fairly balanced with open spaces and areas to explore. The main story can probably be completed in around 30 hours, but there’s plenty to do by way of sides quests and enough to see to last players at least twice that time. I ended my completionist run at 75 hours.

Assassin’s Creed® Origins_20171111182915

Assassin’s Creed® Origins_20171111144426

Assassin’s Creed® Origins

Side quests and activities are abundant in Origins. The game doesn’t completely avoid the bane of open world fetch quests and the like, but it does a decent job at keeping many quests relevant; quests often are revealing of character, turmoil, and political conflict in the game. Players will have the opportunity to solve mysteries, track down missing characters, fight in the arena, race chariots in the Hippodrome, and even engage in ship-to-ship combat (as part of the main story).

Outside of these regular activities, if taking screenshots is a favorite gaming pastime for you, the game features a photo mode, which only makes sense for a game with so many interesting temples and locations. I loved finding crumbling temples, ships lost to the sand, and other gems throughout the world. There’s much to capture in terms of culture as well. As a side note, I will not complain if more games keep adding photo modes.

Criticism & Final Thoughts

Assassin’s Creed Origins is one of the better open world games I have played and is one of the best in the franchise. The game does have that characteristic Ubisoft “feel” in that there will end up being hundreds of icons on the map and so many side quests to complete that the game can feel overwhelming at times if you get caught up in the map. And while this isn’t an ill exclusive to Ubisoft titles, it’s still worth mentioning.  This is of personal preference, but I think that the music could have been stronger and the story, while overall cohesive, could have used additional polish.

The only thing I came across in the way of bugs had to do with Bayek getting caught on the edge of something. But with some crouching and jumping, I was always able to free him. As with past games, there’s a lot to climb, and the developers seem to be improving this mechanic. Bayek is able to clamber up a lot more structures and natural formations than previous assassins and the “holds” or “catches” are more seamlessly part of those structures. There aren’t as many ugly ledges noticeably sticking out screaming “here! grab here!” However, Ubisoft could do more to improve the fluidity of the climbing/parkour system.

After two weeks with the game, I can say that the weapon and enemy variety, leveling and combat systems, story, and world are enough to make Origins a must buy for fans of the franchise and for newcomers. It’s just a fun game. Getting to explore ancient Egypt as Bayek was a joy, and the hours were well-spent. If Ubisoft continues to spend time on each new entry, the franchise could see some significant growth with the next few titles, and that’s an exciting prospect.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Assassin’s Creed Origins (PS4) Open world rpgs are among my favorite type of video games, and when I first read rumors that the next…

[etechwire-blog]

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey release date, news, and trailers

New Post has been published on https://www.etechwire.com/assassins-creed-odyssey-release-date-news-and-trailers/

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey release date, news, and trailers

When it comes to Assassin’s Creed games it’s no longer a matter of if it’s going to be released. Instead, it’s become where and when (both in real life and in-game). Although we were certain that there would be another Assassin’s Creed game after 2017’s extremely successful Origins, it wasn’t until the leak of a keyring and a subsequent confirmation from Ubisoft that we can now say we know it’s going to be called Assassin’s Creed Odyssey.

Information on Odyssey is thin on the ground at the moment and although we think it’s a safe bet that the game will take players back to Ancient Greece, we can’t really be sure of anything. Here we’ve gathered everything we’ve heard about the game so far, before its big reveal at E3 2018. 

Cut to the chase

What is it? The next game in the Assassin’s Creed franchise 

When can I play it? Most likely late 2018 or early 2019 

What can I play it on? Expect PS4, Xbox One and PC 

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey release date

After the Assassin’s Creed series took a year out between Syndicate and Origins, there’s been a question around whether the game will return to its annual release cycle or move to a more spaced out release cycle. 

We don’t yet have an official release date for Assassin’s Creed Odyssey but according to Kotaku, sources have said that Assassin’s Creed Odyssey will be released in the 2019 fiscal year. This would put the release date at March 31 2019 at the latest. Given the series usually opts for an October/November release window this would suggest that we’ll see Assassin’s Creed return to its annual cycle and release later this year. 

We can’t be sure of this, of course, without official confirmation. Given Ubisoft had said it was pleased with Origins‘ reception and attributed much of the success to the extra time taken in development, we’d be surprised by the release of another game only one year later. But we’re sure we’ll hear more about Assassin’s Creed Odyssey’s release date during Ubisoft’s presentation at E3. 

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey trailers

The only kind of footage we have from Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is from the trailer Ubisoft used to confirm the game’s existence before E3. It’s a short clip that shows what appears to be a Spartan soldier 300-ing another soldier from a cliff. It’s hard to say which army this second soldier represents. We wouldn’t want to be them anyway.

See you at E3! pic.twitter.com/03NTPhCkCfMay 31, 2018

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey news and rumors

It’s likely to be set in ancient Greece

Before the teaser for Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was revealed, there were already rumors that the next game would be set in Ancient Greece. The Spartan helmet and Spartan symbol at the end of the official trailer certainly seems to say this will be the case.

What this leaves us wondering, though, is when in Ancient Greek history the game will take place. Reports suggest that this will be a direct sequel to Assassin’s Creed Origins, yet the Ancient Greek empire and the Spartans at their strongest greatly pre-date the time setting of Assassin’s Creed Origins. 

According to Kotaku, sources have said that this game will be set hundreds of years before Origins. But given Origins was supposed to be the founding of the Hidden Ones, the precursor to the Assassin’s brotherhood, and there are also reports this is a direct sequel, things don’t quite add up.

It could be possible that the game will span several timelines – one which takes us to a time before Origins, one which directly continues the Origins story, and one which will carry on the storyline in the modern day. The name Odyssey would certainly suit that kind of narrative structure as well as a Greek setting. 

Considering Aya gives Bayek a hidden blade in Origins that once belonged to Darius, who assassinated the Persian King Xerxes during the Greco-Persian wars hundreds of years earlier, we could go back to a time that pre-dates even the Hidden Ones. This would at least offer a thematic sequel, rather than a narrative one. 

The Spartans may be involved

The game’s short trailer certainly suggests that the Spartans will be involved in Odyssey in some capacity. Not only does the soldier in red kicking the other soldier from the cliff practically scream ‘This is Sparta’, the symbol above the game’s title is the iconic Spartan helmet and symbol that’s frequently used on their shields.

Interestingly, this upside down V looks like it could be an early version of the blade-like official Assassin’s insignia. Which makes us wonder even more about the idea that this game will tell a story of the brotherhood that pre-dates even the Hidden Ones. We saw where the origins of where the term Eagle Vision came from with Bayek, which could make up the wing-like base of the symbol, now we could see the origins of the hidden blade which tops it. We’ve explained our thoughts on this a little more. 

New heroes

According to Kotaku reports, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey will feature entirely new heroes. Not only that, they’ll be male and female, and players will be able to choose which protagonist they play. It’s not clear whether or not Bayek and Aya will make a reappearance in this game but if it is a direct sequel, we’d expect to hear about them in some form. 

Being able to choose between a male and a female protagonist would certainly suit a Spartan setting since it seems that women had a lot more freedom in ancient Sparta compared to other Greek states of the time. 

It’ll bring even more gameplay changes than Origins

It’s also been reported by Kotaku that Odyssey will take the RPG changes made in Origins even further, aiming for more Witcher-like gameplay. As we’ve said above, it’s being said that players will have a choice of two protagonists but it’s also suggested that dialogue options will come to the series for the very first time 

What we want to see from Assassin’s Creed Odyssey

More naval battles

There are rumors that naval battles will make a return to Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and we’d love to see that happen. If the game is set in ancient Greece then any kind of naval warfare would be very different from what we saw in Black Flag, but that would make it feel far more fresh. 

More varied missions

Assassin’s Creed Origins did a better job of giving us reasons to explore its open map than any other Assassin’s Creed game thanks to its side quests, but we’d love to see a little more variety in the next release. While Origins made the effort to introduce these quests with more interesting and varied characters, we’d also like to see a little more variety in the mission design. Often the side quests in Origins had different stories behind them, but the solution was one of a small range of things, from invading an enemy camp to rescuing someone.

We’ve heard that Ubisoft is trying to be a little more Witcher-like with this release and that suggests we might just get what we’re wishing for. 

Refined combat

Assassin’s Creed Origins overhauled the series’ combat for the better, but we’d like to see it refined a little more for Odyssey. If the game does revolve around the highly militarized Spartans, we’re hoping we’ll see a combat style that’s a little tighter and more controlled than the more loose movements we saw in Origins. 

[brandbaskets]

New Post has been published on https://brandbaskets.in/assassins-creed-odyssey-release-date-news-and-trailers/

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey release date, news, and trailers

When it comes to Assassin’s Creed games it’s no longer a matter of if it’s going to be released. Instead, it’s become where and when (both in real life and in-game). Although we were certain that there would be another Assassin’s Creed game after 2017’s extremely successful Origins, it wasn’t until the leak of a keyring and a subsequent confirmation from Ubisoft that we can now say we know it’s going to be called Assassin’s Creed Odyssey.

Information on Odyssey is thin on the ground at the moment and although we think it’s a safe bet that the game will take players back to Ancient Greece, we can’t really be sure of anything. Here we’ve gathered everything we’ve heard about the game so far, before its big reveal at E3 2018. 

Cut to the chase

What is it? The next game in the Assassin’s Creed franchise 

When can I play it? Most likely late 2018 or early 2019 

What can I play it on? Expect PS4, Xbox One and PC 

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey release date

After the Assassin’s Creed series took a year out between Syndicate and Origins, there’s been a question around whether the game will return to its annual release cycle or move to a more spaced out release cycle. 

We don’t yet have an official release date for Assassin’s Creed Odyssey but according to Kotaku, sources have said that Assassin’s Creed Odyssey will be released in the 2019 fiscal year. This would put the release date at March 31 2019 at the latest. Given the series usually opts for an October/November release window this would suggest that we’ll see Assassin’s Creed return to its annual cycle and release later this year. 

We can’t be sure of this, of course, without official confirmation. Given Ubisoft had said it was pleased with Origins‘ reception and attributed much of the success to the extra time taken in development, we’d be surprised by the release of another game only one year later. But we’re sure we’ll hear more about Assassin’s Creed Odyssey’s release date during Ubisoft’s presentation at E3. 

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey trailers

The only kind of footage we have from Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is from the trailer Ubisoft used to confirm the game’s existence before E3. It’s a short clip that shows what appears to be a Spartan soldier 300-ing another soldier from a cliff. It’s hard to say which army this second soldier represents. We wouldn’t want to be them anyway.

See you at E3! pic.twitter.com/03NTPhCkCfMay 31, 2018

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey news and rumors

It’s likely to be set in ancient Greece

Before the teaser for Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was revealed, there were already rumors that the next game would be set in Ancient Greece. The Spartan helmet and Spartan symbol at the end of the official trailer certainly seems to say this will be the case.

What this leaves us wondering, though, is when in Ancient Greek history the game will take place. Reports suggest that this will be a direct sequel to Assassin’s Creed Origins, yet the Ancient Greek empire and the Spartans at their strongest greatly pre-date the time setting of Assassin’s Creed Origins. 

According to Kotaku, sources have said that this game will be set hundreds of years before Origins. But given Origins was supposed to be the founding of the Hidden Ones, the precursor to the Assassin’s brotherhood, and there are also reports this is a direct sequel, things don’t quite add up.

It could be possible that the game will span several timelines – one which takes us to a time before Origins, one which directly continues the Origins story, and one which will carry on the storyline in the modern day. The name Odyssey would certainly suit that kind of narrative structure as well as a Greek setting. 

Considering Aya gives Bayek a hidden blade in Origins that once belonged to Darius, who assassinated the Persian King Xerxes during the Greco-Persian wars hundreds of years earlier, we could go back to a time that pre-dates even the Hidden Ones. This would at least offer a thematic sequel, rather than a narrative one. 

The Spartans may be involved

The game’s short trailer certainly suggests that the Spartans will be involved in Odyssey in some capacity. Not only does the soldier in red kicking the other soldier from the cliff practically scream ‘This is Sparta’, the symbol above the game’s title is the iconic Spartan helmet and symbol that’s frequently used on their shields.

Interestingly, this upside down V looks like it could be an early version of the blade-like official Assassin’s insignia. Which makes us wonder even more about the idea that this game will tell a story of the brotherhood that pre-dates even the Hidden Ones. We saw where the origins of where the term Eagle Vision came from with Bayek, which could make up the wing-like base of the symbol, now we could see the origins of the hidden blade which tops it. We’ve explained our thoughts on this a little more. 

New heroes

According to Kotaku reports, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey will feature entirely new heroes. Not only that, they’ll be male and female, and players will be able to choose which protagonist they play. It’s not clear whether or not Bayek and Aya will make a reappearance in this game but if it is a direct sequel, we’d expect to hear about them in some form. 

Being able to choose between a male and a female protagonist would certainly suit a Spartan setting since it seems that women had a lot more freedom in ancient Sparta compared to other Greek states of the time. 

It’ll bring even more gameplay changes than Origins

It’s also been reported by Kotaku that Odyssey will take the RPG changes made in Origins even further, aiming for more Witcher-like gameplay. As we’ve said above, it’s being said that players will have a choice of two protagonists but it’s also suggested that dialogue options will come to the series for the very first time 

What we want to see from Assassin’s Creed Odyssey

More naval battles

There are rumors that naval battles will make a return to Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and we’d love to see that happen. If the game is set in ancient Greece then any kind of naval warfare would be very different from what we saw in Black Flag, but that would make it feel far more fresh. 

More varied missions

Assassin’s Creed Origins did a better job of giving us reasons to explore its open map than any other Assassin’s Creed game thanks to its side quests, but we’d love to see a little more variety in the next release. While Origins made the effort to introduce these quests with more interesting and varied characters, we’d also like to see a little more variety in the mission design. Often the side quests in Origins had different stories behind them, but the solution was one of a small range of things, from invading an enemy camp to rescuing someone.

We’ve heard that Ubisoft is trying to be a little more Witcher-like with this release and that suggests we might just get what we’re wishing for. 

Refined combat

Assassin’s Creed Origins overhauled the series’ combat for the better, but we’d like to see it refined a little more for Odyssey. If the game does revolve around the highly militarized Spartans, we’re hoping we’ll see a combat style that’s a little tighter and more controlled than the more loose movements we saw in Origins. 

Source link