-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is Assassin Creed Odyssey worth it for $20?
- Thread starter Clocian
- Start date
Oof, it's $20 on PS4 but still $60 on Steam and I'd rather not play on my PS4 if I can play on PC. Maybe I'll just keep an eye on it for the future.
The glowing reviews here are pretty tempting, but I'm hesitant to simply jump into the hype. Gonna need to do more research on it.
The glowing reviews here are pretty tempting, but I'm hesitant to simply jump into the hype. Gonna need to do more research on it.
Even when Google said that they were giving free copies away to Project Stream beta testers, I couldn't be bothered to complete the requirements by playing Odyssey for 2-3 hours. In part this was because streaming games sucks, but I'd say it was also due to Odyssey being kinda boring.
It's really not.
But for $20, it's a lot of game. If you are into Ubisoft open world stuff.
It's one of the most boring repetitive and immature open world RPG's I ever played.
@OP: go for it if your want a lot of game, but be prepared for some ridiculous, repetitive and hilarious sidequests, bad and corny voice acting, very "gamey" and outdated feeling quest design, bad arcady horse controls, a bad sense of scale and basically a game that's mainly about checking of markers on a map that's to big for it's own good (which is pretty special, since the game has a bad sense of scale). Graphics are nice though if you have an HDR TV.
I'd prefer Origins, which feels a lot more mature in my opinion.
Since you haven't played Origins, yeah, go for it. While it does have some problems with feature bloat and many of the mechanics not being integrated well, my main issue with it was how similar to it is to Origins, and that's not something you'll share. Odyssey does have aspects worth recommending, too. While the story isn't great, it has its moments, and it kinda goes off the rails at the end in a very entertaining way. Kassandra is the best protagonist in the series as well.
I really quite loved it. It's my favourite in the series and while the writing is a bit poor, the scenario and characters are quite memorable, but it's the gameplay, design, and world that really shine. The grinding isn't an issue so long as you do some of the side content, and I wouldn't call it filler, some of the most fun and intriguing content is in the side quests, especially with the post launch content (there is a lot of free stuff). They did also address the level scaling in a patch and while the game still does have level scaling, it has a wider range now making it feel a quite a bit better so the lower level areas aren't just automatically being bumped up to your level if you so desire.
Both the leads are quite good, but I found Kassandra to be far more appealing. I'd also recommend playing in exploration mode with a very limited HUD (I think I had just the compass and enemy health bars on).
Both the leads are quite good, but I found Kassandra to be far more appealing. I'd also recommend playing in exploration mode with a very limited HUD (I think I had just the compass and enemy health bars on).
The last and only Assassins Creed I had ever played was Black Flag when PS4 launched and I was personally bored senseless. But I took a gamble on Odyssey from the good word of mouth here for the steam Chinese new year sale and...my god, I am totally immersed. Amazing, amazing, amazing game. That alongside Far Cry 5 from Ubisoft last year have really really impressed me. Combat is great---almost to the precision and enjoyably of a character action game like DMC, exploration that may be far short but probably the closest any videogame has gotten to BOTW level of beautiful, an intriguing story, deep rpg elements. I wouldn't hesitate honestly.
The gameplay and the design are in fact the weak parts, in my opinion. Controlling your horse feels like you're in an arcade driving simulator. The physics are totally off. The design is horrible. You're sent on missions to bring over some stuff to a guy, which literally take 10-15 seconds of walking. Total immersion breaking, just like the mercenaries texting each other that one of them found you and before you know it you're fighting 5 of them because they somehow all now where you are. Oh man some of the quests and most of the voice acting had me cringe big time. The game really treats it's players like idiots in my opinion.
This a nice example of the fact AC has not matured at all in all those years. This is a small sidequest at the beginning. Not really a spoiler, but don't read further if you want everything to be fresh. This family is sick and about to be executed by some soldiers. Some corny dialogue follows where you can choose with what sentence you wan't to reply (this, by the way, is apparently the reason people call this an RPG, which I don't think it is at all). If you choose to save them, some badly animated fight starts pretty much out of nowhere. After you kill the soldiers, you need to walk to the family (timestamp 02:09) and there they are, cheering like their favorite team scored a goal. Mind you that this family is sick and was almost executed. They would be traumatized for years to come. These things could be handled so much better for added immersion. The game is filled to the brim with these odd cringy situations. It's such a step back after playing games like God of War, Uncharted 4 and even The Last of Us which came out 6 years ago.
What kind of question is that? I personally got bored 32 hours in, chapter 7 in the main story, but I enjoyed it while playing. The graphics on the X1X are beautiful.
What you see as repetitive, I see as a game strongly focused on emergent design over set pieces. Notice how Odyssey has very, very few set pieces? Instead you're given this systems-driven sandbox. Suppose you are sent to kill a target inside a fort. Older AC might have done some song and dance where you arrive at the destination and then a cutscene triggers and they run away. You're forced to chase them in a big set piece. We all remember AC3. Odyssey lets you walk into the camp, kill the target, walk out. No ceremony, no fuss. No longwinded cutscene where the dying characters talk about their feelings -- an AC cliche Ubi were mocking as far back as the original Watch_Dogs. Ubi have gone back to Far Cry 2's style of quest design, of game design. It's the same wellspring Metal Gear Solid V drew from.
I do think AC would benefit, however, from making outposts less formalized. Less formulaic.
Speaking as a PC gamer, the horse is fantastic. One design element I especially love is how you run in a direction, whistle for the horse, and the horse will automatically draw beside you, and Kassandra hops on without player input. The horse goes where you want it go. That's really important in Ubisoft games which place movement to moment player agency above all other design considerations. Notice how you can also loot while riding your horse.
What do you mean by that?
The Exploration Mode does a good job of encouraging exploration. You know the objective is in the southern region of an island, but there might be three question marks down there. So instead of bee-lining for the objective, you pick a destination and see what you find. When you get close to the objective, it tells you so you can pinpoint it with Ikaros. It strikes a really good balance between encouraging free-form exploration and preventing the player getting lost, stuck, or frustrated.
AC: Odyssey is Ubisoft's version of The Witcher 3, and it does a LOT of things better than TW3 from a mechanical perspective. Basic movement, traversal, combat, exploration, and the basic nature of quests. A huge number of quests in TW3 involved following a glowing red scent trail or following glowing red footprints or following glowing red claw marks. Those quests were propped up by solid writing, but they were extremely rigid and restrictive.
AC: Odyssey's quests are largely, "Go here, steal/kill/etc, leave". This is that systems-driven style of quest design found in modern Far Cry games, too. I think people who love set pieces find this style boring. But it plays to the strength of systems-driven design. The game has a few detective quests, and even those are way more freeform than TW3's. Where TW3 would have you examine a few broken pots and stuff, and then have you follow a glowing scent trail to the destination, AC: Odyssey will simply say, "The target has fled somewhere north." And you'll have to head North until you get a ping from Ikaros.
Sometimes you can solve quests immediately because you already found the lost item, or already killed the target. And the game tends to handle that transition really smoothly. Instead of the cutscene ending and then having to talk to them again, Kassandra will say, "Oh, you mean this <insert thing here>?" pulling it out. It all ties back to AC: Odyssey's focus on player agency above all else. The weakness that I hope they address in the next game is that there are a fair number of quests that can't be resolved without killing. Once they solve that, they'll have a game where the player does whatever the hell they want from start to finish. An Assassin's Creed where assassination is completely optional. That's the direction they're going.
It is a steal with that price.
It is one of the most fun open world games ever and the whole grinding narrative comes from people who are trying to play it like a linear game instead of a slice of life adventure game. It is basically a TV series structured game. Do the "side content" because they are quite good and I could argue are better than the main quest line.
The game is also one of those games that has many different dynamic systems that result in cool and unique situations that are unexpected which is my favourite part of the game.
It is one of the most fun open world games ever and the whole grinding narrative comes from people who are trying to play it like a linear game instead of a slice of life adventure game. It is basically a TV series structured game. Do the "side content" because they are quite good and I could argue are better than the main quest line.
The game is also one of those games that has many different dynamic systems that result in cool and unique situations that are unexpected which is my favourite part of the game.
It's great and was worth it at 60. It has tons of content but don't go into it expecting a short game. It's long and it's gameplay loop is samey, but addicting if you like loot.
I don't like agressive enemy level scaling in Odyssey. It makes leveling your character useless until level 50 when you unlock master abilities which can give some edge over enemies. But getting to level 50 without xp boost (which costs 10$ extra) is quite a chore. They also announced that max level will be raised from 70 to 99 in the next update which honestly is bad news for players. With every level you have to either find new gear or upgrade your old gear for in-game money and resources.
I think enemy scaling was better done in Origins, zones scaled up to certain level.
I also don't like mercenaries, I just pay bounty and hunt them at my own pace. Mercenaries also discourage open conflict, open conflict = bounty = mercenaries on your six.
What I like in Odyssey is ability to jump off height without loosing health/dying. When I played Origins I wished for parachute like in AC Brotherhood or BotW. Ability from Odyssey is next best thing. Also teleport assasination is great addition.
I don't mind ship feature in Odyssey. I didn't encountered any classic ship missions in Odyssey and that's really ok. There are some missions "destroy that ship" or "save that slave from ship x" but they aren't scripted. I didn't like sea missions in Origins (all scripted). Also sea battles are resolved pretty quick in comparison for overly long battles in Black Fladg
Another nice addition for post main game are cultist. Hunthing them gives incentive to travel the map more and spend more time with game (again there wasn't much to do in Origins after side quests).
I think enemy scaling was better done in Origins, zones scaled up to certain level.
I also don't like mercenaries, I just pay bounty and hunt them at my own pace. Mercenaries also discourage open conflict, open conflict = bounty = mercenaries on your six.
What I like in Odyssey is ability to jump off height without loosing health/dying. When I played Origins I wished for parachute like in AC Brotherhood or BotW. Ability from Odyssey is next best thing. Also teleport assasination is great addition.
I don't mind ship feature in Odyssey. I didn't encountered any classic ship missions in Odyssey and that's really ok. There are some missions "destroy that ship" or "save that slave from ship x" but they aren't scripted. I didn't like sea missions in Origins (all scripted). Also sea battles are resolved pretty quick in comparison for overly long battles in Black Fladg
Another nice addition for post main game are cultist. Hunthing them gives incentive to travel the map more and spend more time with game (again there wasn't much to do in Origins after side quests).
Without a doubt. I wouldn't have bought it for $60, but that's because I never have the time to finish open world games like AC:O. But for $20 it's a no brainer. (I got it for $35 btw.)
Firstly, I wanna point out that different approaches work for different games. I hold STALKER in exceptionally high regard, and that game has a lot of stuff in it that works in STALKER, but wouldn't work in other games. However, when talking about Odyssey, the basic principle is player empowerment. Give the player the tools to do what they want with minimal fat. Even little things like being able to skip through dialogue might seem like a standard feature for an RPG, but it's actually really important. Imagine if Odyssey had gone down the Telltale route of unskippable cutscenes. That would be wasting the player's time. (Especially on replays.)
I've played RDR2 on PS4. I admire aspects of the game. Strongly dislike its lack of player agency. Look forward to a really in-depth playthrough when it release on PC. However, waiting around for your horse to arrive, or walking long distances to get back to your horse, is not fun. You're just burning time. Time is really important in these huge, huge games.
I'm a big fan of Hidden and Dangerous 2. Amazing tactical shooter. In that game, squadmates can only hear your commands if they are in earshot. And you can also choose between whispering commands and calling them normally. What this means is that you may have to backtrack hundreds of meters to tell a squadmate to follow you. This works well in H&D2's context. But imagine if something like Far Cry did that. It would kind of suck. Being able to simply call for your Gun for Hire to follow you regardless of distance is a QoL improvement that works in the context of Far Cry. At least the current design strain. Backtracking to say, "Please follow me," wastes the player's time. it might be more immersive. It might lead to interesting tactical situations. But not in this case.
Also, look at RDR2's approach to looting. You have to get off your horse. Slowly. And then you walk to the thing you're looting. Slowly. Then you loot the thing. Slowly. (There's an animation and everything.) Then you walk back to your horse. Climb on. Trot 30 seconds. Do it again.
In AC: Odyssey, you literally just ride your horse past the thing and tap E. It also auto-loots everything in a radius. So if you have 3 corpses in a pile, looting one loots them all. Shoot an animal with your bow, and taking its meat and skin is the press of a button. I notice that Far Cry has outright ditched looting and skinning animations now. You go back to Far Cry 3. Every enemy required this long "patting them down" animation to loot. That's completely gone in New Dawn. Skinning animals used to be this long, long animation with blood and meat. All gone now. Because those design elements might seem more "immersive" in small doses, but they really just get in the way of playing the game.
Sailing in games is fun. You know what's even more fun? (At least in Odyssey.) Actually getting to your destination. That's why your boat travels at extremely high speeds when you press spacebar in Odyssey. Of course, there is case to be made that if the boat moved slowly in AC: Odyssey, you could have really atmospheric gameplay where you wander around the ship, read books, talk to NPCs, and watch the waves go by. Entire games have been built around sailing ships. It is possible to treat the sailing of a ship as a truly enjoyable activity in and of itself. But in AC: Odyssey's context it's merely a means of transportation with layer of combat on top.
AC Odyssey is focused on allowing the player to go where they want and do what they want with minimal fuss. Wanna climb that mountain? Just let them scale it. Don't force them to trot around for 30 minutes looking for a path up.
To be fair, I actually liked FC5's approach to exploration a bit more than AC: Odyssey, but I think FC5's approach doesn't work as well in third person games, and games with the huge, huge scale of AC: Odyssey.
I have codes for Uplay (I know sorry!). But at least you'll be able to play it on PC for $20 if you're interested.
You are serious OT?
20$ for 70+ hours of story and side quests content and one of the biggest and most beautiful open world it's literally STEAL.
20$ for 70+ hours of story and side quests content and one of the biggest and most beautiful open world it's literally STEAL.
For the record I haven't played Odyssey myself but have seen it played by a friend. I do agree that Odyssey's no-nonsense style when it comes to looting etc works for it, at the same time I feel it's sheer amount of content means less engaging content. A lot of fetch/kill quests and low enemy variety with somewhat clunky combat. If you had to slowly loot things on top of that then I doubt anyone would be able to clear the game. I want to give it a go but at the same time feel overwhelmed about the content. The last AC game I liked was Black Flag, mostly because the sea vs land action was in a good balance to avoid getting fed up with either.
While RDR2 emphasises animation over everything else too much, it has a sense of immersion and a very good scale to it. I can live with the slow looting because I feel it makes for more realistic experience where you can't just go around looting everything around you during combat and when ransacking a place must prioritize what you pick up or someone might come shoot you. As a cowboy simulator it works well and has enough unique random events and side quests to avoid "boring bits" for most of the game. Traveling is fun, I used fast travel in it very little overall because exploring the map is engaging. Its main mission structure is horribly rigid and dated though, it's a classic case of developers trying to be movie directors. Absolutely no player options on how they want to approach a situation. Still, the slower pace of the game works for it but it would not for AC: Odyssey.
agreed. both are really good, i just liked the world alot more in Origins. Kassandra is a great character, but Bayek is more of a believable bad ass imo.