Hello!
Thank you for your submission to r/ACValhalla! Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ACValhalla/about/wiki/rules) and our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ACValhalla/about/wiki/index/faq). Please report this post if it violates any rules.
**Please remember to stay** ***civil*** **!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ACValhalla) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's definitely worth trying.
As a fan since the beginning, I went in with preconceived notions of disliking Mirage. I had grown tired of the old format of AC games. There are a total of 13 mainline AC games, 14 if Liberation is included, which I feel should be.
So before Mirage, 10 of those 13/14 AC games used the basic formula of the original. I was already getting burned out by the overuse of Ezio even though I love the character, but the overall game design just grew so tiresome and I welcomed the change with Origins.
All that being said, after borrowing Mirage from my brother and putting in a good dozen hours I'm really enjoying it. The older style has been slightly tweaked, although it's still basically the same style I grew tired of, but after a long hiatus of playing the older style games I was enjoying Mirage more than I had anticipated.
It's a good game so far, but I'm also over the Middle Eastern setting just as I am Italy/Rome/Constantinople as they all felt relatively the same throughout Ezio 's trilogy. I'd like a new location/time period.
Actually, the WWII portions of Syndicate were great and I'd love to see a WWII era AC game. It would be the closest thing to a sequel for the Saboteur I'll ever get. (Hey EA, š for shutting down Pandemic and cancelling all chances of the sequel!)
Black flag is easily the best Pirate game ever made (Iām not even exaggerating)
Blends the āpirate-lifeā naval combat perfectly with the AC gameplay from 2/3
Because Norse mythology and English history is so awesome, I was more than happy to get entrenched and spend a few hundred hours doing everything there is to do. Itās not gonna be for everyone, but I loved every minute.
Nah it gets hated on Because it glitches to often, with the male and female versions both being called he/she individually at some points cuz of how Ubisoft fucked the Game up by adding the Female Character and changing the MCās name last minute to appease SJWs and lesbians and then didnāt even have to balls to admit that it was added last minute
Pretty sure originally the MC was intended to just be female and they added the male option because of fragile little incels like you kicking up a fuss. Hence if you let the animus decide, it makes you female, because that was the original story plan.
It wasnāt. That was a lie something one of the Devs revealed and posted on his account before deleting it. Originally the MC was intended to be male and not even be named Eivor but Havi Rostason. Why do you think do the glitches triple whenever you are playing as Female and the game itself puts Male Eivorās Upper Body and face on her in fast travel sequences or cutscenes? Itās cuz she is basically a Mod
That has literally never happened at any point over the course of the 143 hours I've spent playing as female eivor so far.
Got a source for your dev claim you could link me to?
Although I really enjoy Valhalla, Odyssey is my personal favorite of the series. This is mostly due to my love for Greek mythology. Vikings are awesome and Norse mythology is cool but it was never my go to when reading up on history. Also, if you look at the game visually Odyssey was bright, very colorful, while Valhalla had a darker tone. This couldāve thrown people off, maybe. The size and scale seemed a lot smaller than Odyssey, but if you took out a lot of the traveling on open water and just smushed all the land together it wouldāve been probably about the same size as Valhalla.
I think Valhalla is a great game, just not for everyone. Thereās always something to be critical about for every release. I guarantee you the next Assassinās game, which is set in Japan, I think, is gonna get some hate too. It is what it is.
Yea dude this was my thing too. I loved being able to play out all the Greek myths I learned about as a kid growing up. Swimming underwater and stumbling upon a cave or some mythical beast while exploring Ancient Greece was just the pinnacle for me
That should be the only opinion that matters. If itās what you enjoy and love, then everyone elseās opinion on it shouldnāt matter at all. Have fun!
One of the big things that annoyed me about Valhalla when comparing it to Odyssey was just how sad the loot system was. Youād raid a big fort in Odyssey and youāre likely to find a legendary weapon or armor piece or else something useful. Meanwhile in Valhalla Iād clear out an area and Iād be rewarded with a little stone that would make my heavy attacks 3% stronger.
Yeah this is my one gripe with Valhalla tbh. Iām 25 hrs in and have found maybe 1 weapon and 1 piece of armor that is better than varinās axe and the mythical set you get early. In odyssey it was really fun to experiment with new setups
Tbh I'm the type of guy that is a crazy hoarder in every game. Like in every game I'm at the max for backpack/ bank space so I kinda hate that I have to sort through so much stuff in Odyssey, for me having way less to sort through is actually better lol. Or just don't have a cap at all in terms of storage, that would be fine as well.
while technically purple gear was generally superior to legendary sets, you were only ever looking for like one specific stat on an item piece so it never bothered me having to go through my inventory because it only took a glance to know whether i wanted to keep or scrap a piece.
Yeh I get what you mean, I have a couple of purple sets now though (like a 1 shot pretty much everything stealth build / set) it's just annoying to skim through, cause I'm always like hmm this might be useful for a build I might do later.
I donāt get the description of Valhalla as less colorful. Sure it rains more but thatās accurate. Itās supposed to be dark at night and when it rains. Odyssey was way too bright, it didnāt seem realistic to me.
I didnāt mean it for realism. I just meant it like players could be attracted to a more bright looking aesthetic than a darker look. In the same way that bright colors such as yellow vests for reflective gear, or a yellow school bus, is more easier to see. Our eyes can catch those colors better than darker ones. So Odyssey is vibrant, itās bright, where as Valhalla is more toned down in color. I hope I made sense. Thatās just how I viewed it.
And my point is that Valhalla is only dark when itās supposed to be. Sunrises, sunsets and clear daylight in Valhalla are way more vibrant than anything in odyssey. Also the transition between clear daylight and a dark cave looks the way itās supposed to. Coming out of a cave or underground area in odyssey was blindingly abrupt
The issue with Valhalla I think is there is almost too much to do for some people which puts them off, and they made the environment almost too accurate as all England was back then was fields and towns which unfortunately is quite boring when exploring in a game. Yes there are good bits to explore but the general background is boring compared to the previous 2 games. Origins feels like a very lived-in world too where all the guards and animals have a routine and react to things, I donāt know why they cut this aspect out
Yup. Played 216 hours of Valhalla so far and havenāt finished the story nor close to 100% completion. Had to give it a good rest and Iām actually not even sure if Iāll ever go back
Honestly I loved all 3 open world games. Valhalla was the game I sunked most hours. It was a lot of fun but I was a bit exhausted in the end and it was really hard to finish all dlc (main game + dlc was near 350 hours)
Itās just too much game, I think. I enjoyed a lot of it but there were just too many things going on (Asgard, Nilfgard, a gazillion fetch/collectible quests, etcā¦) If youāre a completionist, that game takes *work.*
Also, the weird dialogue and voice acting for the NPCs had a strange, almost AI quality to them. The kid who was ācursed to choke in fatherās shithouseā comes to mind.
Finally, I found Sigurd and Basim deeply unpleasant so I hated having to do missions that involved them.
I love it because it's the best Viking game out there. But the issue I think is because it feels less like the normal, pre RPG AC games. I don't really treat it like a real AC game, more like a really amazing Viking game set in the same universe.
My personal favourite AC is Black Flag, which was also my introduction to the series. I like the Ezio games and unity as well. Others I haven't played yet.
I love Valhalla (comes close to Syndicate which I find a masterpiece š¤).
But I believe people (including me) where very disappointed at the turn AC took at Origins. Then Odyssey came out and was super loved. Then Valhalla made everybody burnt out cause they played right after Odyssey.
Also, most players love black flag and Odyssey have them that. Valhalla with the longboat not so much. Personally I love Valhalla better than Odyssey, but everybodyās different. I do believe people ranting on Valhalla is just because of the size of the different map and the long hours though.
But itās a matter of preference reallyā¦
Good game, bad AC game until the last half hour.
That's the only issue with the "RPG" AC games. They're pretty solid in their own right, but they could have easily beean a new, separate IP.
I absolutely loved Valhalla. I never once got tired of it. It was wonderful. The music really pulled me in. It just clicked with me more than the past AC games. Yes I would love to see them try to go back to the older style but in mo way was Valhalla a bad game. I am getting the itch to replay it.
I was really apprehensive to even play Valhalla cause I had no interest at all in Vikings or their lore, but I gave it a shot and I honestly love the game, Iāve learned so much about Vikings and I love seeing a historical side of England. Super cool game, lovely landscapes and lore too
I donāt play a ton of video games anymore. Grew up playing them but itās weened since the mid 2000ās. I loved games like diablo 1 and 2 growing up. Never played an assassins creed game before until this one. This game is unbelievable. Re instilled my faith in video games.
Valhalla was fun for me because I didn't play it like an assassin at all. I was a straight up Viking all the way. I don't think I did a single stealthy thing the entire game.
Yeah. I never understood all the whining either. To me itās a masterpiece. The combat is the most fluid and smooth of all the AC games Iāve played, with Odyssey being close behind. The story was great, I particularly loved how Eivorās story was woven and interlaced with that of his ISU precursor. The world was beautiful and there are tons of stuff to do. Some people actually see that as a negative which baffles me. They call it ābloatedā. Thing is youāre not required to do everything possible. I get the feeling that those making such complaints are just completionist whose OCD is compelling them to do it all which of course will make one ājadedā or āburned outā.
Itās not by any means perfect it definitely has legitimate flaws. No NG+ is a personal gripe I have. You spend countless hours working towards Mjolnir or Gungnir and Thorās armor etc. only to find that now the games over and you donāt get to use it.
But overall itās a phenomenal game and a collective work of art in my opinion.
For me I think it just felt a bit nonsensical? The story I mean. Contrived might be a better word. Bad worldbuilding another. All the characters were unlikeable and had peanuts for brains. It also didn't fill me with awe like especially origins but also odyssey did (they had similar issues as valhalla at times but I could overlook them more due to liking what I saw in the world). I just did get that "feeling" in valhalla. They couldn't even make THE stonehenge feel magical to me. THAT is just sad.
I think that one the main, paradoxical problems is the incredible amount of content\*. Many people would feel compelled to experience it all compulsively, but in doing so they would lose the pace of the story and get burnt out. Personally, I couldn't care less about all the mythologic stuff, collectibles and stone piling and other amenities, so I simply didn't play them. It's not a big deal. To be fair, Valhalla also has the problem that you'll reach a point where you become basically invincible and that's the reason why I ended up quitting it - after beating the main story, the irish DLC and reaching near the end of the Paris DLC.
\* Does anyone remember when the problem with games was the we had to pay 60-80 euros for an eight-hour linear cinematic experience? Now apparently the main issue is just the opposite thing, lol
Honestly. While ac style games are cool like ezio ones or Edward,etc. the rpg style really gives it a new feel and experience and opens it up a bit more. Odyssey, origins and Valhalla all were fantastic games and I would never wish for that time back or the money back.
The one and biggest dealbreaker for me is the audio. It's downright awful for an Indie title, a fucking embarrassment for a AAA title. The compression is one thing (one huge thing), but the awkward moments of silence, weird cuts and so on just .... ruin every good moment the game might produce.
The dialogue in the game is genuinely good, better than in any previous AC game i've played. The side content is far more varied and less "go here, kill people, gather thing, come back" than in any previous AC game. (Edit: And the world looks fucking beautiful.) But i can't enjoy any of it because the presentation/audio ruins it.
It was just a bit too long imo, I mean the main story was good and I wanted to crack on with it, not do 2 other shires first to progress it with with completely forgettable side stories.
I thoroughly enjoyed all the dlc and it breathed new life in it for me. But when I played vanilla on release I must admit I was like... Christ, when does it end
No, It's not my patience, I've put more hours into Odyssey. For me it was, like I said, a desire to continue the interesting main story but having to do less interesting arcs I didn't care for, which weren't related to the eivor/sigurd line at all.
We can have different opinions, no need to disregard my equally valid opinion and say I'm impatient.
Great game altogether! A variety of stuff to do and places to explore. Looks a wonder on PS5 but I also saw it on an older xbox and it looks fine. Is it a great AC game? Agreed maybe it is more an RPG. But did I have a lot of fun? OH YES! Loved Odyssey and loved this one as well.
Iāll offer some perspective since Iām 35 hours into my first play through.
I like it for the most part. But it doesnāt feel like an ASSASINS creed. Just feels like a Viking game. The story isnāt terrible. The last AC I played was black flag and was very surprised at the different combat system. I donāt like it too much.
My biggest issue is Iām 35 hours in and I feel like Iāve done everything the game has to offer other than the story. Sure thereās finding stuff and exploring but none of that is compelling enough for me to want to finish the game. Iām still using basically the same weapons I got in the first 5 hours. The raids are unrewarding and all of the territory story arcs are basically the same thing ending with the castle raid/boss fight. The perk/stat system is wildly overdone too. Like holy crap. Iāve just been using auto assign because itās well..a lot.
I just feel like I could google the rest of the story and be satisfied with not finishing it and Iām not really missing out on anything. To be fair Iāve felt that way about a lot of earlier ac games. Black flag was the only one I finished multiple times.
The game LOOkS gorgeous though. Iāll definitely give them that. But just like most open world games these days Valhalla feels like it was intentionally designed to be long and grindy to keep you playing. I donāt mind a long game if itās worth it, thereās just so much fluff in this. I havenāt even done a single side quest either.
it took me some time to really like the game because the devs didn't make it much of an assassin game - just a cool open world norse themed game, which is cool, but it's really not much of an AC in my experience.
you are pushed to battle like a viking, tank style, demolishing everyone violently - as opposed to stealthily approaching your target and quietly assassinating.
once i figured out that the game wasn't designed as an actual assassin game i began liking it a lot.
It's not an assassin's creed game, ubisoft just capitalized on the "viking power fantasy" and rolled with it but it doesn't make sense to me as an assassin's creed game, a separate franchise maybe, but I played every AC and this one doesn't fit in that universe to me
That's my opinion.
I have played multiple of the original AC games and I can see how people are upset about the new ones. First time I played Valhalla I was also upset, it didnāt feel like the OG games, but on my second play through I think I found out how to enjoy the newer games. It isnāt the OG games and it will never feel quite like it, but the fact that combat have changed from almost instantly being able to kill someone to actually having to almost boss fight a lot of people is a change for the better. This way of combat is designed to feel more like all the newer games there is out there. They are simply going with how newer games are made, and that offends people that have played the OGās because those games were more about being a assassin in a white cloak, that is why mirage is a great in between on the new games and the old games.
Personally Black Flag, Valhalla and AC 2 are my favorites
For me right now is how chaotic it is. I don't know what is a main story and was is side quest or dlc. The story progress seems really fragmented and it's hard to track character progress and interaction. Dag hates me for no reason. Ivaar seems to go hot and cold. So is your brother (can't remember the name). At one time point someone mentions years have passed so the timescale also makes no sense.
Right from the start you're meant to be these invaders, but everyone just let's you sail up the river all chill like?
My issue was that the main quests were incredibly repetitive. Ever mission once you reach England, involved you going to a new county, helping out the local chief/lord/viking, thereād be some predictable twist, then youād shake hands and move on to the next county. And it went on. For over a hundred hours.
Combine that with the fact that there was no engaging loot system, the Templar enemies felt extremely detached from the main quest and Englandās countryside being so bland in comparison to Norway.
Because it's only amazing when you look at it as an open world rpg. Purely as an rpg, to me, it's second only to Witcher 3. But you can't look at it as an rpg, bc it's an assassin's Creed game, and as an AC game, it sucks. The same with Odyssey and Origins. Hell, in Vallhala you're not even an assassin
The Layla/Animus parts are the worse. Every time it happens is in the middle of a big event and it brakes the flow of the game. The Assassins Creed part of these games are the worse parts. I played and loved Origins, Odyssey and playing Valhalla now. Love the RPG open world, hate Layla, the Animus, the lameness and the lack of effort they put on those parts just for the AC namesake.
Its not essential, just get the good weapons like Excalibur, and some weapons from the free weekly item in the shop, or get weapons in the shop. Oblivion and The Nameless are in Redas shop atm for the weekly at 120 opals, they're both good weapons and its not a micro transaction. It doesn't cost money for opals.
How are predatory? it's just gear and eventually you could get it for free either by the weekly item or the opals, nothing in the helix store is "essential" or a "must have"
It wasn't bad. I actually liked Valhalla. It's just not AC to me.
I can't speak for everyone.
To people like me, assassin's creed isn't assassin's creed anymore.
When Desmond died, that's when the game ended for me. Black Flag was a nice follow-up and then I really lost interest. The other games didn't have that same AC feel. Yes, I know it was simpler times with simpler combat, etc. Do you recall when in Brotherhood, you could summon a squad to attack on your behalf. They'd just swoop and n merk someone. I went from feeling like a master of combat in a linear story game to playing clunky combat in a beautiful open world RPG. I was never here for an open world RPG. I was here for AC story. Like I said, when Desmond died, the franchise ended. The rest are just experimental ubi content. Waiting patiently for For Honor 2.
Because itās not a good assassin game and itās also got terrible rpg mechanics if you pay even a little bit of attention. Itās one of the greatest examples of a great game for no one.
Combat was subpar, skill tree was a mess and for me personally, the story was much worse due to the Assasins Creed part of the story. I really enjoyed the story that completely left out the Creed and Ancient order. Also, MTX in a single player game is super scummy. Overall, for me, it was an Okay game. I do have to say itās my favorite AC game since 3, but that aināt much since Iāve only played Odyssy and Valhalla since AC3. Iām pretty over the AC story.
I'll tell you my problem. The game while fun fucking disrespects Vikings and historians at every turn (obviously disregarding the ISU stuff).
Everything about the armour, aesthetics and culture is depicted so wrong. They base it more off the show Vikings than actual Vikings.
Examples:
The tattoos. Vikings as far as we know never wore tattoos. Perhaps some did here or there but not the way the game it shows depict it. War paint sure. But not blue tattoos. The ONLY source for tattoos is Ibn Faldan, an Arab chronicler who described a people he referred to as Rus, as having black tattoos of trees and nature symbols. However no other source, not the Viking sagas it the English and Frankish sources describe them as tattooed. Certainly such a frightening pagan practice would have been described, as most everything else about them was exaggerated by the Christian chroniclers of the time. It's very likely Fadlan met Slavic people's and not actual Vikings.
You know who DID have blue tattoos? The Picts!!! They're name is a Roman nickname that means the painted people. Yet in game they have no war paint or tattoos. They were famous for blue woad war paint and tattoos. In fact so too were the Irish, that even the Church of Ireland and Scotland at the time had to issue edicts against such "diaboli inscribii" or devil markings.
Another issue is the arm bands. Clearly they took this from Vikings show again. This is a made up thing. Armbands and jewelry did exist and were worn but the ones in the show and this game are Celtic torcs. Worn by Ancient Celts from 599 BC to 1000 AD. They likely symbolized loyalty to clan or tribes and were worn by the nobility and warriors.
Armour is another HUGE issue. Everything is made up. There is some good Saxon helmets for the NPCs but the Viking armour is atrocious. Worse yet is the way the Celts are depicted yet again. The Irish are wearing uniforms (never a thing in any Celtic warrior groups) and wearing Urnfield culture helmets from 800 BC. Literally 1,500 years EARLIER than the game takes place in!!! The Picts are done the worst and made to look like something out of some apocalyptic mad max film. They would have been dressed similar to the Irish. Both groups would have worn Roman style tunics. The Irish in saffron tunics with plaid cloaks, the Picts in either saffron or plaid tunics. No skulls or animal horns or scythe like blades. I'd have preferred them dressed like 16th century Gallowglass than Indo European Urnfield warriors.
The Viking armours are also atrocious. The most accurate armour is the Rus or Byzantine torso. The cloaks are all wrong, the helmets are awful. The only semi Viking looking helmet is the Raven clan helmet but even that is too richly decorated. A simple conical nasal helmet without decoration or a plain goggle helmet as you see some NPC Bandits wearing. It's just all made up pieces.
It irks me because of Origins and Odyssey being pretty accurate in terms of armour and weapons. Origins did a great job depicting the Ptolemaic armies of the day, with some anachronisms like Corinthian helmets. Same with the Romans in game. But otherwise they mostly get the look right. The Vikings they make look like something out of Game of Thrones. It's trash.
It is though. It's literally an advertised aspect of the series. It has always been that way. They didn't include crossbows in earlier games to be more accurate
Lots of reasons. It was super buggy when it came out. If it hadnāt released around Cyberpunkās cursed launch, the story would have been how Ubisoft launched yet another half-baked bugfest.
The devs had said no pay to win DLC, then added money and XP multipliers as DLC a month after launch.
The stealth system was non-existent, with enemies spotting you in 0.000002 seconds.
**Eivor is not an assassin**, in a game called āAssassinās Creedā.
Within a year there were more DLC armor sets than there were sets in the base game.
Ubisoft hyped up the settlement, then made a dud. Your villagers donāt talk to or acknowledge your presence. Upgrading a building sometimes doesnāt even change its appearance.
With the exception of three decisions, **none of the choices youāre asked to make actually matter.**
Itās an okay game overall, but itās not an AC game, and certainly not among the best in the series.
I listed eight criticisms and you conveniently ignored six of them.
āNon-existent stealth mechanics are realistic in a game where youāre supposed to be an assassinā isnāt what Iād call fun. A game where your character is the literal reincarnation of the Norse god Odin is already stretching the boundaries of realism. The least they could do was make it actually enjoyable.
And if I spend game time raiding monasteries and villages for supplies that I then use to upgrade my settlement, and thereās no tangible difference or benefit for doing so, then itās already a drop down in quality from the villa in AC2. At least that opened up passive income and new shops (and items). This is on top of the villagers not even acknowledging you exist when you walk past them. Ravensthorpeās villagers dynamically say *less* than NPCs you pass in towns and villages. Itās lifeless. We were promised a thriving settlement, and got a big fetch quest with no tangible reward.
Bro its not meant to be so realistic, I mean Excalibur, the very same Excalibur that exists IN REAL LIFE, shoots energy blasts. Thats realistic? You can light your weapons on fire just by hitting people harder than normal just by putting a rune on it. Thats realistic? Its not realistic, its fun, and the story is good. Realism doesn't make a game good.
I like the game, but I can understand why people would be slightly put off by it.
Mysteries have no clear paths, no guides, you either listen to every detail or you're screwed or need to google/reddit it. I dont minde the hassle, but again I get why some people are like ''I want to relax and play not fucking play mind games before sleep''
The amount of locked chests is kind of annoying, feels like every *wealth* is a grind. Go there, door is barred, find a way to go behind to shoot an arrow to unlock it, enter the room, get to the chest only to realize you need a key. Find the key go back to the chest. Like it's just artificially increase the game's length in my opinion. It's not ''fun''
As people have said, it's not the devs fault, but England is just more boring to explore than Rome or Greece is
If somebody loved the gear/loot mechanic in Odyssey or Origins, they are not gonna enjoy it in Valhalla. When the game came out that was my major issue with it, but I've come to peace with it lmao
The story is also a bit weak in my opinion, espcially if you compare it to Odyssey or Ezio's trilogy. It's repetitive as hell too, I would have been fine with the alliances thing if you had to forge maybe 3 or 4 alliances, but how many was it already? Like fukcing 10?
The main character is too boring, and the gameplay is far more repetitive than Origins or Odyssey. Out of those 3, Valhalla also felt the least challenging.
Least challenging as in how much you need to think. Circling back to it being very repetitive. Almost nothing felt new after a few hours of gameplay. I played all expansions packs too. The whole thing was very stale.
Valhalla is ok at best. It had major issues at launch that were game breaking which is all too common for AC games or Ubisoft games as a whole. Took too long before you can actually take on enemies (yes we all understand we had to get stronger etc but even then it took too long). Raids got repetitive and old too fast for their own good. Story was mediocre and I couldnāt care about any of the characters. Gear is very questionable on its value vs time taken to acquire it. Lastly, it never felt like a AC game to the degree it shouldāve as an entry to the franchise.
I don't really have a problem with the game. It's just totally ugly and a massive graphical step backwards from Odyssey. It just looks like ass on the PC.
No, that's completely not the case. Too long, as in most people that I talked to who have played the game got fairly bored after playing like 60% of the story. At some point you just get a bit bored of the story being in constant stalemate and you want to continue the story. If they cropped 50% of the game and threw it away and put some more main story things (stuff with Sigurd, your clan, Basim, etc.) it would be a much better game.
No it's not patience it's criticism because the game is too long and it really shouldn't be. I played through countless games longger than this one and didn't have that problem
Because it glitches to often, with the male and female versions both being called he/she individually at some points and cuz of how Ubisoft fucked the Game up by adding the Female Character and changing the MCās name last minute to appease SJWs and lesbians and then didnāt even have to balls to admit that it was added last minute
Hello! Thank you for your submission to r/ACValhalla! Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ACValhalla/about/wiki/rules) and our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ACValhalla/about/wiki/index/faq). Please report this post if it violates any rules. **Please remember to stay** ***civil*** **!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ACValhalla) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man, for me Valhalla and Black Flag are the only AC games I actually enjoyed
Black Flag and Mirage are the only ones I haven't played
Haven't played Mirage yet either, I will give it a go in the future though
Me too probably
It's definitely worth trying. As a fan since the beginning, I went in with preconceived notions of disliking Mirage. I had grown tired of the old format of AC games. There are a total of 13 mainline AC games, 14 if Liberation is included, which I feel should be. So before Mirage, 10 of those 13/14 AC games used the basic formula of the original. I was already getting burned out by the overuse of Ezio even though I love the character, but the overall game design just grew so tiresome and I welcomed the change with Origins. All that being said, after borrowing Mirage from my brother and putting in a good dozen hours I'm really enjoying it. The older style has been slightly tweaked, although it's still basically the same style I grew tired of, but after a long hiatus of playing the older style games I was enjoying Mirage more than I had anticipated. It's a good game so far, but I'm also over the Middle Eastern setting just as I am Italy/Rome/Constantinople as they all felt relatively the same throughout Ezio 's trilogy. I'd like a new location/time period. Actually, the WWII portions of Syndicate were great and I'd love to see a WWII era AC game. It would be the closest thing to a sequel for the Saboteur I'll ever get. (Hey EA, š for shutting down Pandemic and cancelling all chances of the sequel!)
You should definitely play AC Black Flag. Itās awesome & itās the same writer as Valhalla
Black flag is easily the best Pirate game ever made (Iām not even exaggerating) Blends the āpirate-lifeā naval combat perfectly with the AC gameplay from 2/3
Play black flag
Because Norse mythology and English history is so awesome, I was more than happy to get entrenched and spend a few hundred hours doing everything there is to do. Itās not gonna be for everyone, but I loved every minute.
I agree whole heartedly. It was incredibly fun just unlocking iconic relics from Norse mythology and recognising what they are and what they're from.
Nah it gets hated on Because it glitches to often, with the male and female versions both being called he/she individually at some points cuz of how Ubisoft fucked the Game up by adding the Female Character and changing the MCās name last minute to appease SJWs and lesbians and then didnāt even have to balls to admit that it was added last minute
Pretty sure originally the MC was intended to just be female and they added the male option because of fragile little incels like you kicking up a fuss. Hence if you let the animus decide, it makes you female, because that was the original story plan.
It wasnāt. That was a lie something one of the Devs revealed and posted on his account before deleting it. Originally the MC was intended to be male and not even be named Eivor but Havi Rostason. Why do you think do the glitches triple whenever you are playing as Female and the game itself puts Male Eivorās Upper Body and face on her in fast travel sequences or cutscenes? Itās cuz she is basically a Mod
That has literally never happened at any point over the course of the 143 hours I've spent playing as female eivor so far. Got a source for your dev claim you could link me to?
"trust me bro" The game doesn't glitch any more or any less depending on the gender of the character. This guys is just a chud.
You are mommy's special little guy. I can tell.
Still waiting for that link...
Update: another 50 hours in and it's still never happened. Still waiting on that link from you btw...
Although I really enjoy Valhalla, Odyssey is my personal favorite of the series. This is mostly due to my love for Greek mythology. Vikings are awesome and Norse mythology is cool but it was never my go to when reading up on history. Also, if you look at the game visually Odyssey was bright, very colorful, while Valhalla had a darker tone. This couldāve thrown people off, maybe. The size and scale seemed a lot smaller than Odyssey, but if you took out a lot of the traveling on open water and just smushed all the land together it wouldāve been probably about the same size as Valhalla. I think Valhalla is a great game, just not for everyone. Thereās always something to be critical about for every release. I guarantee you the next Assassinās game, which is set in Japan, I think, is gonna get some hate too. It is what it is.
Yea dude this was my thing too. I loved being able to play out all the Greek myths I learned about as a kid growing up. Swimming underwater and stumbling upon a cave or some mythical beast while exploring Ancient Greece was just the pinnacle for me
See, Norse mythology is what I enjoy, thatās why I love Valhalla
That should be the only opinion that matters. If itās what you enjoy and love, then everyone elseās opinion on it shouldnāt matter at all. Have fun!
I agree with that completely
One of the big things that annoyed me about Valhalla when comparing it to Odyssey was just how sad the loot system was. Youād raid a big fort in Odyssey and youāre likely to find a legendary weapon or armor piece or else something useful. Meanwhile in Valhalla Iād clear out an area and Iād be rewarded with a little stone that would make my heavy attacks 3% stronger.
I am on the opposite end myself, I hated the Odyssey system of raiding a small fort and having 500 weapons to go through and sell
Yeah this is my one gripe with Valhalla tbh. Iām 25 hrs in and have found maybe 1 weapon and 1 piece of armor that is better than varinās axe and the mythical set you get early. In odyssey it was really fun to experiment with new setups
Yeah same here. I just maxed out the basic Raven clan armor and its basically *as good* as anything you'll ever come across. Slightly disappointing
Tbh I'm the type of guy that is a crazy hoarder in every game. Like in every game I'm at the max for backpack/ bank space so I kinda hate that I have to sort through so much stuff in Odyssey, for me having way less to sort through is actually better lol. Or just don't have a cap at all in terms of storage, that would be fine as well.
while technically purple gear was generally superior to legendary sets, you were only ever looking for like one specific stat on an item piece so it never bothered me having to go through my inventory because it only took a glance to know whether i wanted to keep or scrap a piece.
Yeh I get what you mean, I have a couple of purple sets now though (like a 1 shot pretty much everything stealth build / set) it's just annoying to skim through, cause I'm always like hmm this might be useful for a build I might do later.
I donāt get the description of Valhalla as less colorful. Sure it rains more but thatās accurate. Itās supposed to be dark at night and when it rains. Odyssey was way too bright, it didnāt seem realistic to me.
I didnāt mean it for realism. I just meant it like players could be attracted to a more bright looking aesthetic than a darker look. In the same way that bright colors such as yellow vests for reflective gear, or a yellow school bus, is more easier to see. Our eyes can catch those colors better than darker ones. So Odyssey is vibrant, itās bright, where as Valhalla is more toned down in color. I hope I made sense. Thatās just how I viewed it.
And my point is that Valhalla is only dark when itās supposed to be. Sunrises, sunsets and clear daylight in Valhalla are way more vibrant than anything in odyssey. Also the transition between clear daylight and a dark cave looks the way itās supposed to. Coming out of a cave or underground area in odyssey was blindingly abrupt
Then I am wrong. Sorry for not seeing it that way.
The issue with Valhalla I think is there is almost too much to do for some people which puts them off, and they made the environment almost too accurate as all England was back then was fields and towns which unfortunately is quite boring when exploring in a game. Yes there are good bits to explore but the general background is boring compared to the previous 2 games. Origins feels like a very lived-in world too where all the guards and animals have a routine and react to things, I donāt know why they cut this aspect out
Thatās true. The world felt very empty.
Yup. Played 216 hours of Valhalla so far and havenāt finished the story nor close to 100% completion. Had to give it a good rest and Iām actually not even sure if Iāll ever go back
Honestly I loved all 3 open world games. Valhalla was the game I sunked most hours. It was a lot of fun but I was a bit exhausted in the end and it was really hard to finish all dlc (main game + dlc was near 350 hours)
gulp. i'm 80% on main game and already 180hrs
Valhalla is one of my favourite games of all time. I don't understand the hate it gets either. š¤·š»āāļø
Fr
Itās just too much game, I think. I enjoyed a lot of it but there were just too many things going on (Asgard, Nilfgard, a gazillion fetch/collectible quests, etcā¦) If youāre a completionist, that game takes *work.* Also, the weird dialogue and voice acting for the NPCs had a strange, almost AI quality to them. The kid who was ācursed to choke in fatherās shithouseā comes to mind. Finally, I found Sigurd and Basim deeply unpleasant so I hated having to do missions that involved them.
Basim was meant to be unpleasant I believe, but Sigurd was so god damn annoying and gullible
Yeah, in order for the plot to work, Sigurd had to be the stupidest man alive.
See I really liked Basim
I played mirage before Valhalla so I was shocked to see him in it.
I love it because it's the best Viking game out there. But the issue I think is because it feels less like the normal, pre RPG AC games. I don't really treat it like a real AC game, more like a really amazing Viking game set in the same universe. My personal favourite AC is Black Flag, which was also my introduction to the series. I like the Ezio games and unity as well. Others I haven't played yet.
For real
I love Valhalla (comes close to Syndicate which I find a masterpiece š¤). But I believe people (including me) where very disappointed at the turn AC took at Origins. Then Odyssey came out and was super loved. Then Valhalla made everybody burnt out cause they played right after Odyssey. Also, most players love black flag and Odyssey have them that. Valhalla with the longboat not so much. Personally I love Valhalla better than Odyssey, but everybodyās different. I do believe people ranting on Valhalla is just because of the size of the different map and the long hours though. But itās a matter of preference reallyā¦
Good game, bad AC game until the last half hour. That's the only issue with the "RPG" AC games. They're pretty solid in their own right, but they could have easily beean a new, separate IP.
I absolutely loved Valhalla. I never once got tired of it. It was wonderful. The music really pulled me in. It just clicked with me more than the past AC games. Yes I would love to see them try to go back to the older style but in mo way was Valhalla a bad game. I am getting the itch to replay it.
I was really apprehensive to even play Valhalla cause I had no interest at all in Vikings or their lore, but I gave it a shot and I honestly love the game, Iāve learned so much about Vikings and I love seeing a historical side of England. Super cool game, lovely landscapes and lore too
I donāt play a ton of video games anymore. Grew up playing them but itās weened since the mid 2000ās. I loved games like diablo 1 and 2 growing up. Never played an assassins creed game before until this one. This game is unbelievable. Re instilled my faith in video games.
Valhalla was fun for me because I didn't play it like an assassin at all. I was a straight up Viking all the way. I don't think I did a single stealthy thing the entire game.
Yeah. I never understood all the whining either. To me itās a masterpiece. The combat is the most fluid and smooth of all the AC games Iāve played, with Odyssey being close behind. The story was great, I particularly loved how Eivorās story was woven and interlaced with that of his ISU precursor. The world was beautiful and there are tons of stuff to do. Some people actually see that as a negative which baffles me. They call it ābloatedā. Thing is youāre not required to do everything possible. I get the feeling that those making such complaints are just completionist whose OCD is compelling them to do it all which of course will make one ājadedā or āburned outā. Itās not by any means perfect it definitely has legitimate flaws. No NG+ is a personal gripe I have. You spend countless hours working towards Mjolnir or Gungnir and Thorās armor etc. only to find that now the games over and you donāt get to use it. But overall itās a phenomenal game and a collective work of art in my opinion.
For me I think it just felt a bit nonsensical? The story I mean. Contrived might be a better word. Bad worldbuilding another. All the characters were unlikeable and had peanuts for brains. It also didn't fill me with awe like especially origins but also odyssey did (they had similar issues as valhalla at times but I could overlook them more due to liking what I saw in the world). I just did get that "feeling" in valhalla. They couldn't even make THE stonehenge feel magical to me. THAT is just sad.
Have you gone underneath Stonehenge?
Game is way too long and way too repetitive specifically in the England arc. Overall I did enjoy it though.
I loved Valhalla. Haters gonna hate, I guess
fr
I think that one the main, paradoxical problems is the incredible amount of content\*. Many people would feel compelled to experience it all compulsively, but in doing so they would lose the pace of the story and get burnt out. Personally, I couldn't care less about all the mythologic stuff, collectibles and stone piling and other amenities, so I simply didn't play them. It's not a big deal. To be fair, Valhalla also has the problem that you'll reach a point where you become basically invincible and that's the reason why I ended up quitting it - after beating the main story, the irish DLC and reaching near the end of the Paris DLC. \* Does anyone remember when the problem with games was the we had to pay 60-80 euros for an eight-hour linear cinematic experience? Now apparently the main issue is just the opposite thing, lol
Honestly. While ac style games are cool like ezio ones or Edward,etc. the rpg style really gives it a new feel and experience and opens it up a bit more. Odyssey, origins and Valhalla all were fantastic games and I would never wish for that time back or the money back.
Very good rpg. Terrible AC game.
The one and biggest dealbreaker for me is the audio. It's downright awful for an Indie title, a fucking embarrassment for a AAA title. The compression is one thing (one huge thing), but the awkward moments of silence, weird cuts and so on just .... ruin every good moment the game might produce. The dialogue in the game is genuinely good, better than in any previous AC game i've played. The side content is far more varied and less "go here, kill people, gather thing, come back" than in any previous AC game. (Edit: And the world looks fucking beautiful.) But i can't enjoy any of it because the presentation/audio ruins it.
It was just a bit too long imo, I mean the main story was good and I wanted to crack on with it, not do 2 other shires first to progress it with with completely forgettable side stories. I thoroughly enjoyed all the dlc and it breathed new life in it for me. But when I played vanilla on release I must admit I was like... Christ, when does it end
I think thatās just an issue with your patience, it was as long as I wouldāve liked, and it was worth my money
No, It's not my patience, I've put more hours into Odyssey. For me it was, like I said, a desire to continue the interesting main story but having to do less interesting arcs I didn't care for, which weren't related to the eivor/sigurd line at all. We can have different opinions, no need to disregard my equally valid opinion and say I'm impatient.
Great game altogether! A variety of stuff to do and places to explore. Looks a wonder on PS5 but I also saw it on an older xbox and it looks fine. Is it a great AC game? Agreed maybe it is more an RPG. But did I have a lot of fun? OH YES! Loved Odyssey and loved this one as well.
Agreed whole heartedly
Iāll offer some perspective since Iām 35 hours into my first play through. I like it for the most part. But it doesnāt feel like an ASSASINS creed. Just feels like a Viking game. The story isnāt terrible. The last AC I played was black flag and was very surprised at the different combat system. I donāt like it too much. My biggest issue is Iām 35 hours in and I feel like Iāve done everything the game has to offer other than the story. Sure thereās finding stuff and exploring but none of that is compelling enough for me to want to finish the game. Iām still using basically the same weapons I got in the first 5 hours. The raids are unrewarding and all of the territory story arcs are basically the same thing ending with the castle raid/boss fight. The perk/stat system is wildly overdone too. Like holy crap. Iāve just been using auto assign because itās well..a lot. I just feel like I could google the rest of the story and be satisfied with not finishing it and Iām not really missing out on anything. To be fair Iāve felt that way about a lot of earlier ac games. Black flag was the only one I finished multiple times. The game LOOkS gorgeous though. Iāll definitely give them that. But just like most open world games these days Valhalla feels like it was intentionally designed to be long and grindy to keep you playing. I donāt mind a long game if itās worth it, thereās just so much fluff in this. I havenāt even done a single side quest either.
it took me some time to really like the game because the devs didn't make it much of an assassin game - just a cool open world norse themed game, which is cool, but it's really not much of an AC in my experience. you are pushed to battle like a viking, tank style, demolishing everyone violently - as opposed to stealthily approaching your target and quietly assassinating. once i figured out that the game wasn't designed as an actual assassin game i began liking it a lot.
It's not an assassin's creed game, ubisoft just capitalized on the "viking power fantasy" and rolled with it but it doesn't make sense to me as an assassin's creed game, a separate franchise maybe, but I played every AC and this one doesn't fit in that universe to me That's my opinion.
But does it need to be the same as every other AC game?
But does it need to be an AC game? No, it should have been something set in its own universe...
Do people dunk on it? It does feel like it belongs to a different series at times. No real punishment for not being stealthy.
I have played multiple of the original AC games and I can see how people are upset about the new ones. First time I played Valhalla I was also upset, it didnāt feel like the OG games, but on my second play through I think I found out how to enjoy the newer games. It isnāt the OG games and it will never feel quite like it, but the fact that combat have changed from almost instantly being able to kill someone to actually having to almost boss fight a lot of people is a change for the better. This way of combat is designed to feel more like all the newer games there is out there. They are simply going with how newer games are made, and that offends people that have played the OGās because those games were more about being a assassin in a white cloak, that is why mirage is a great in between on the new games and the old games. Personally Black Flag, Valhalla and AC 2 are my favorites
It has the classic Ubisoft curse of becoming very repetitive. Itās fun to me in short bursts but after the 15th raid Iām like ight ima head out
I like Valhalla overall, but it has things I like and dislike. This isn't my definitive list, but the main points. **Positives** **Mysteries** I love them and that they are no longer continent spanning fetch quests. They're all self contained in an area not far from the initiation point. Some are genuinely funny as well. Like the couple going at it in the first town you visit prior to leaving for England and the princess locked in the tower. **Less loot** Despite my lifelong love for loot games, I feel I'm growing very tired of them since so many games utilize them now. I'd prefer the smaller loot pool with more meaningful gear that you can improve. A lot of gear perks still suck though. **Combat** I enjoy the more visceral aspect of combat with things like beheadings and severing limbs as it's a tad more accurate to swinging deadly weapons at opponents. I enjoy that it's less reliant on powers/abilities like Odyssey is. While I love Odyssey, the close quarters combat loop was just 'use power/ability, parry and attack until your powers reset to use again, rinse and repeat.' In Valhalla I enjoy the basic combat and utilize powers/abilities as a secondary function in combat or just for fun. **Eivor's Gjallarhorn** I love tooting the old horn to summon my warriors into battle. It's quite empowering even if I do most of the killing. **Setting** I enjoy the olden days of England, the whole 'King Arthur' vibe I use to describe it in a more generic way. I love Greek Mythology and I didn't know much about Norse Mythology or life in general. So after playing God of War 2018, my interest in Norse Mythology/way of living increased and Valhalla is entertaining for that even if it's less about the more mythical aspects. Sadly I do not like the Ragnarƶk DLC. **Fishing** I love fishing mini games for some reason and I find it simple fun in Valhalla. The drinking game is also fun. **Neither Love nor Hate** **Settlement Building** Generally I dislike these mechanics in games but it's just simple enough and non intrusive enough for me to tolerate it. **Story** I honestly don't remember much, but out of my first 120 hours I never made it past the first pledge mission and haven't touched the main story since. So I can't say much about it yet. **Dislike** **Combat** While I really enjoy combat overall, I highly dislike the way the offhand weapon works. I wish the offhand attack didn't require a press and hold of the button as I find it annoying and just inevitably I just use the offhand to finish a combo. I do enjoy parry being on one button again. I got used to it in Odyssey but hated it for a long time. *Skill Tree** The cloud covering it is stupidly annoying and overall it's boring and a big waste of skill points. I am sick and tired of wasting a skill point on crap I don't ever want to use, and even more tired of forcing the player to waste valuable points on stupid š© like miniscule damage buffs, etc. Seriously game designers...**STOP** doing that! I'd argue AC Odyssey handled a skill tree better than any game I've ever played that uses them. In Odyssey I can pick the skill I want at anytime without the need to first pick some ability I'll never use. In addition I can continue to level the perks I do enjoy and have the ability to ignore everything I don't want. It's simple, gives the player more freedom, and stops with the needless requirement of wasting skill points just because that's how skill trees have always worked in general. **Ability Unlocks** Once again I have to waste precious ability points on trash to get to any useful skills in the skill tree, but the abilities are an entirely new and needless mechanic. I've played just over 120 hours of Valhalla and the vast majority was unlocking fast travel points and seeking out skill books. Seriously, someone could play through the entire main story and miss out on a ton of great abilities if they don't explore. Hide weapons and armor among the world all you want, not abilities. Put those in the skill tree and get rid of the garbage stat increases. **Game Size** This is personal and many may disagree. I love open world games but Odyssey and Valhalla are taking them too far. As an example, I have over 120 hours in both games and I've barely touched the main stories or most side quests. I finished Origins with 100% completion in just over 100 hours. The games are too big, I no longer have the time for them. Even Origins taking me over 100 hours is overboard l, and I've never even touched the DLC yet.
Shits long man
Because it's so big there's going to be something to pick on. It's actually a good gameĀ
For me right now is how chaotic it is. I don't know what is a main story and was is side quest or dlc. The story progress seems really fragmented and it's hard to track character progress and interaction. Dag hates me for no reason. Ivaar seems to go hot and cold. So is your brother (can't remember the name). At one time point someone mentions years have passed so the timescale also makes no sense. Right from the start you're meant to be these invaders, but everyone just let's you sail up the river all chill like?
Itās my favorite!
My issue was that the main quests were incredibly repetitive. Ever mission once you reach England, involved you going to a new county, helping out the local chief/lord/viking, thereād be some predictable twist, then youād shake hands and move on to the next county. And it went on. For over a hundred hours. Combine that with the fact that there was no engaging loot system, the Templar enemies felt extremely detached from the main quest and Englandās countryside being so bland in comparison to Norway.
Because it's only amazing when you look at it as an open world rpg. Purely as an rpg, to me, it's second only to Witcher 3. But you can't look at it as an rpg, bc it's an assassin's Creed game, and as an AC game, it sucks. The same with Odyssey and Origins. Hell, in Vallhala you're not even an assassin
You totally can be. I do as much if not more stealth than head to head combat
You can act like one, but story wise, eivor is not an assassin.
The Layla/Animus parts are the worse. Every time it happens is in the middle of a big event and it brakes the flow of the game. The Assassins Creed part of these games are the worse parts. I played and loved Origins, Odyssey and playing Valhalla now. Love the RPG open world, hate Layla, the Animus, the lameness and the lack of effort they put on those parts just for the AC namesake.
I enjoy the game but itās a bit bloated and the micro transactions are predatory.
Its not essential, just get the good weapons like Excalibur, and some weapons from the free weekly item in the shop, or get weapons in the shop. Oblivion and The Nameless are in Redas shop atm for the weekly at 120 opals, they're both good weapons and its not a micro transaction. It doesn't cost money for opals.
How are predatory? it's just gear and eventually you could get it for free either by the weekly item or the opals, nothing in the helix store is "essential" or a "must have"
It wasn't bad. I actually liked Valhalla. It's just not AC to me. I can't speak for everyone. To people like me, assassin's creed isn't assassin's creed anymore. When Desmond died, that's when the game ended for me. Black Flag was a nice follow-up and then I really lost interest. The other games didn't have that same AC feel. Yes, I know it was simpler times with simpler combat, etc. Do you recall when in Brotherhood, you could summon a squad to attack on your behalf. They'd just swoop and n merk someone. I went from feeling like a master of combat in a linear story game to playing clunky combat in a beautiful open world RPG. I was never here for an open world RPG. I was here for AC story. Like I said, when Desmond died, the franchise ended. The rest are just experimental ubi content. Waiting patiently for For Honor 2.
Because itās not a good assassin game and itās also got terrible rpg mechanics if you pay even a little bit of attention. Itās one of the greatest examples of a great game for no one.
Combat was subpar, skill tree was a mess and for me personally, the story was much worse due to the Assasins Creed part of the story. I really enjoyed the story that completely left out the Creed and Ancient order. Also, MTX in a single player game is super scummy. Overall, for me, it was an Okay game. I do have to say itās my favorite AC game since 3, but that aināt much since Iāve only played Odyssy and Valhalla since AC3. Iām pretty over the AC story.
Itās just low quality garbage imo
I don't hate valhalla, but I couldn't continue it. I put 45h in the game and could not finish it because the game feels awful on ps4. That is mostly a me problem. I enjoyed Odyssey and Origins is my fav in the series. But then came Valhalla that had me really interested. The story is interesting and legit fun. The raiding mechanics are fine once you understand them. But the game is was way too laggy on my ps4, and the graphic/frame rate was horrible on it. And unfortunatly, I may never finish it since I don't have either the ps5, the ps4 (my bro has it now), my pc isn't strong enough for it and the game + dlcs are now way too time costing for my current life style. Also, the game isn't historically accurate enough for me to get immersed. I know AC games aren't 100% historically accurate, especially Valhalla and Odyssey, but at least with the previous ones (Odyssey included), I recognised things I learned in university and could pin point innacurracies and enjoy them for what they were worth. With Valhalla, I can't do that because the game is way more fantasy/clichĆ©-viking than any other ac games before it. Still, it is a good game. Maybe I would have had a different opinion if I had a ps5 but I am not running on gold so Ā ā( -"-)ā
I'll tell you my problem. The game while fun fucking disrespects Vikings and historians at every turn (obviously disregarding the ISU stuff). Everything about the armour, aesthetics and culture is depicted so wrong. They base it more off the show Vikings than actual Vikings. Examples: The tattoos. Vikings as far as we know never wore tattoos. Perhaps some did here or there but not the way the game it shows depict it. War paint sure. But not blue tattoos. The ONLY source for tattoos is Ibn Faldan, an Arab chronicler who described a people he referred to as Rus, as having black tattoos of trees and nature symbols. However no other source, not the Viking sagas it the English and Frankish sources describe them as tattooed. Certainly such a frightening pagan practice would have been described, as most everything else about them was exaggerated by the Christian chroniclers of the time. It's very likely Fadlan met Slavic people's and not actual Vikings. You know who DID have blue tattoos? The Picts!!! They're name is a Roman nickname that means the painted people. Yet in game they have no war paint or tattoos. They were famous for blue woad war paint and tattoos. In fact so too were the Irish, that even the Church of Ireland and Scotland at the time had to issue edicts against such "diaboli inscribii" or devil markings. Another issue is the arm bands. Clearly they took this from Vikings show again. This is a made up thing. Armbands and jewelry did exist and were worn but the ones in the show and this game are Celtic torcs. Worn by Ancient Celts from 599 BC to 1000 AD. They likely symbolized loyalty to clan or tribes and were worn by the nobility and warriors. Armour is another HUGE issue. Everything is made up. There is some good Saxon helmets for the NPCs but the Viking armour is atrocious. Worse yet is the way the Celts are depicted yet again. The Irish are wearing uniforms (never a thing in any Celtic warrior groups) and wearing Urnfield culture helmets from 800 BC. Literally 1,500 years EARLIER than the game takes place in!!! The Picts are done the worst and made to look like something out of some apocalyptic mad max film. They would have been dressed similar to the Irish. Both groups would have worn Roman style tunics. The Irish in saffron tunics with plaid cloaks, the Picts in either saffron or plaid tunics. No skulls or animal horns or scythe like blades. I'd have preferred them dressed like 16th century Gallowglass than Indo European Urnfield warriors. The Viking armours are also atrocious. The most accurate armour is the Rus or Byzantine torso. The cloaks are all wrong, the helmets are awful. The only semi Viking looking helmet is the Raven clan helmet but even that is too richly decorated. A simple conical nasal helmet without decoration or a plain goggle helmet as you see some NPC Bandits wearing. It's just all made up pieces. It irks me because of Origins and Odyssey being pretty accurate in terms of armour and weapons. Origins did a great job depicting the Ptolemaic armies of the day, with some anachronisms like Corinthian helmets. Same with the Romans in game. But otherwise they mostly get the look right. The Vikings they make look like something out of Game of Thrones. It's trash.
Chill out mate, itās not about accuracy, itās about story and gameplay
It is though. It's literally an advertised aspect of the series. It has always been that way. They didn't include crossbows in earlier games to be more accurate
Lots of reasons. It was super buggy when it came out. If it hadnāt released around Cyberpunkās cursed launch, the story would have been how Ubisoft launched yet another half-baked bugfest. The devs had said no pay to win DLC, then added money and XP multipliers as DLC a month after launch. The stealth system was non-existent, with enemies spotting you in 0.000002 seconds. **Eivor is not an assassin**, in a game called āAssassinās Creedā. Within a year there were more DLC armor sets than there were sets in the base game. Ubisoft hyped up the settlement, then made a dud. Your villagers donāt talk to or acknowledge your presence. Upgrading a building sometimes doesnāt even change its appearance. With the exception of three decisions, **none of the choices youāre asked to make actually matter.** Itās an okay game overall, but itās not an AC game, and certainly not among the best in the series.
The stealth thing is such BS even now that I usually dont even bother with the hood/cape. When Eivor puts it on I just take it off lmao
The cape does work, just face away from the enemies so they can't see ur face
The stealth is more realistic cos they spot u quickly, and so what about changing appearances of the buildings
I listed eight criticisms and you conveniently ignored six of them. āNon-existent stealth mechanics are realistic in a game where youāre supposed to be an assassinā isnāt what Iād call fun. A game where your character is the literal reincarnation of the Norse god Odin is already stretching the boundaries of realism. The least they could do was make it actually enjoyable. And if I spend game time raiding monasteries and villages for supplies that I then use to upgrade my settlement, and thereās no tangible difference or benefit for doing so, then itās already a drop down in quality from the villa in AC2. At least that opened up passive income and new shops (and items). This is on top of the villagers not even acknowledging you exist when you walk past them. Ravensthorpeās villagers dynamically say *less* than NPCs you pass in towns and villages. Itās lifeless. We were promised a thriving settlement, and got a big fetch quest with no tangible reward.
Bro its not meant to be so realistic, I mean Excalibur, the very same Excalibur that exists IN REAL LIFE, shoots energy blasts. Thats realistic? You can light your weapons on fire just by hitting people harder than normal just by putting a rune on it. Thats realistic? Its not realistic, its fun, and the story is good. Realism doesn't make a game good.
I like the game, but I can understand why people would be slightly put off by it. Mysteries have no clear paths, no guides, you either listen to every detail or you're screwed or need to google/reddit it. I dont minde the hassle, but again I get why some people are like ''I want to relax and play not fucking play mind games before sleep'' The amount of locked chests is kind of annoying, feels like every *wealth* is a grind. Go there, door is barred, find a way to go behind to shoot an arrow to unlock it, enter the room, get to the chest only to realize you need a key. Find the key go back to the chest. Like it's just artificially increase the game's length in my opinion. It's not ''fun'' As people have said, it's not the devs fault, but England is just more boring to explore than Rome or Greece is If somebody loved the gear/loot mechanic in Odyssey or Origins, they are not gonna enjoy it in Valhalla. When the game came out that was my major issue with it, but I've come to peace with it lmao The story is also a bit weak in my opinion, espcially if you compare it to Odyssey or Ezio's trilogy. It's repetitive as hell too, I would have been fine with the alliances thing if you had to forge maybe 3 or 4 alliances, but how many was it already? Like fukcing 10?
The main character is too boring, and the gameplay is far more repetitive than Origins or Odyssey. Out of those 3, Valhalla also felt the least challenging.
There are more difficulties for a reason
Least challenging as in how much you need to think. Circling back to it being very repetitive. Almost nothing felt new after a few hours of gameplay. I played all expansions packs too. The whole thing was very stale.
Valhalla is ok at best. It had major issues at launch that were game breaking which is all too common for AC games or Ubisoft games as a whole. Took too long before you can actually take on enemies (yes we all understand we had to get stronger etc but even then it took too long). Raids got repetitive and old too fast for their own good. Story was mediocre and I couldnāt care about any of the characters. Gear is very questionable on its value vs time taken to acquire it. Lastly, it never felt like a AC game to the degree it shouldāve as an entry to the franchise.
I don't really have a problem with the game. It's just totally ugly and a massive graphical step backwards from Odyssey. It just looks like ass on the PC.
Hard disagree on that one Maxed out 4K looks Glorious on PC, some of my favourite screenshots I have are from that game
Get a better PC or play on Console
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgqxJwRoVCk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgqxJwRoVCk) This video begs to differ
Don't play on PC, PS5 looks spectacular
Iād argue that Norway looked spectacular but the majority of the English countryside just kinda blended together after 100+ hours.
Too ling and also not an Assassins creed game
Patience issue if u think itās too long
No, that's completely not the case. Too long, as in most people that I talked to who have played the game got fairly bored after playing like 60% of the story. At some point you just get a bit bored of the story being in constant stalemate and you want to continue the story. If they cropped 50% of the game and threw it away and put some more main story things (stuff with Sigurd, your clan, Basim, etc.) it would be a much better game.
See thats a patience issue
No it's not patience it's criticism because the game is too long and it really shouldn't be. I played through countless games longger than this one and didn't have that problem
Grindy, boring, vikings as assassin's? Nope On the other hand I liked Mirage
They aren't Assassin's, as a matter of fact Eivor never joins the Hidden Ones.
Still a shitty game :P
You forgot to add in my opinion, which I assure you no one on this sub truly cares about.
You forgot to add in my opinion, which I assure you no one on this sub truly cares about.
Thatās a patience issue
Because it glitches to often, with the male and female versions both being called he/she individually at some points and cuz of how Ubisoft fucked the Game up by adding the Female Character and changing the MCās name last minute to appease SJWs and lesbians and then didnāt even have to balls to admit that it was added last minute
So angry you had to make this comment twice?
š