-
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.
Assassin's Creed Origins vs. Odyssey
- Thread starter Phediuk
- Start date
For me Origins so far, Odyssey does some things better but there's something about Origins world building that is better, the way each city in origins feels unique compared to others, whereas in Odyssey they feel more like older AC games where they feel largely the samey from others.
Then there's the combat, and while I wasn't a huge fan of either of them Origins had shields...and Odyssey removing them just makes no sense, especially since you're a bloody Spartan and shields were literally like one of the most IMPORTANT things to a Spartan, on top of just being a smart thing to use in melee combat, it should have been optional to use one or not, not forced upon you.
Then there's the combat, and while I wasn't a huge fan of either of them Origins had shields...and Odyssey removing them just makes no sense, especially since you're a bloody Spartan and shields were literally like one of the most IMPORTANT things to a Spartan, on top of just being a smart thing to use in melee combat, it should have been optional to use one or not, not forced upon you.
I'm liking Odyssey better. The writing is more interesting, particularly the characters. Alexios/Kassandra are far more interesting than Bayek. I'm also enjoying the abilities more. The skill tree in Origins was pretty underwhelming, with a lot of boring passives that simply gave you XP bonuses, automatic looting, reduced merchant prices, etc.
The RPG elements of Odyssey are a bit of a joke but it's still fun to sneak around and kill thousands of Athenians/Spartans without any real consequence.
The RPG elements of Odyssey are a bit of a joke but it's still fun to sneak around and kill thousands of Athenians/Spartans without any real consequence.
Does anyone else think that the combat in Origins feels more satisfying? Like, the animations, the hit impacts, the sound effects etc.
In Odyssey, if feels a bit loose and jank. But in Origins it just feels and looks better.
I understand that the combat in Odyssey may have more "depth" - but I'm talking about the other aspects of combat. Yes, no ... maybe?
In Odyssey, if feels a bit loose and jank. But in Origins it just feels and looks better.
I understand that the combat in Odyssey may have more "depth" - but I'm talking about the other aspects of combat. Yes, no ... maybe?
I haven't finished Odyssey yet but so far I prefer Origins slightly.
- The setting is just so much cooler. Egypt > Greece, all day any day
- Feels like Odyssey has more clutter and busywork tasks like the cultists, bounties etc.
On the other hand, adding dialogue choice is cool and Kassandra is damn awesome.
- The setting is just so much cooler. Egypt > Greece, all day any day
- Feels like Odyssey has more clutter and busywork tasks like the cultists, bounties etc.
On the other hand, adding dialogue choice is cool and Kassandra is damn awesome.
Yeah that is weird. Play a spartan warrior without a shield... wut
I prefer Odyssey much more. I'm much more interested in the setting, I love the traveling around the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas to different Greek islands, the architecture is great as well. Kassandra is also a very good protagonist, better than Bayek IMO. I also like the increased RPG elements, the improved side quests, ship traversal and combat, the melee combat feels better to me as well.
Agree on this. Both games are excellent, but Origins is a more polished and focused experience. It's gonna be interesting to see what Ubi has in store for the DLC part to make a definitive call.
I haven't finished Odyessy yet but that's because I have zero interest in doing so. I hit a point where I just didn't want to do the same things all over again but now in a different zone. I find the mercenary character way less interesting compared to what was driving Bayek in Origins. I also feel that because Kassandra is a mercenary I don't feel like she has any care besides money in most of the side quests, whereas Bayek being a Medjay truly wanted to help people.
But mainly I think I like Origins better because I played it first and kinda recently. I can only clear out so many fortresses, bandit camps, and dwellings before I get bored of it.
But mainly I think I like Origins better because I played it first and kinda recently. I can only clear out so many fortresses, bandit camps, and dwellings before I get bored of it.
Well said.
More time to figure out the systems, time to learn from the first team's mistakes - as Odyssey's director said no AC team has ever been in more communication with another AC team than Odyssey's was with the Origins team. All this shows.
I wonder where Assassin's Creed will be in 2020 when the next game launches; how much more will Ubisoft evolve in this RPG direction they seem to be heading....
I didn't vote because Odyssey is in the backlog right now. Current making my way through RDR2 but as soon as I finish I think Odyssey will be the game I tackle next.
I'll say this, I loved Origins. I put in about 80 hours into the campaign which I finished, just this past June. I liked the game enough that I got the Platinum trophy. Congrats to Ubi for creating what amounts to an entire country, it's a very impressive open world. I liked the Epyptian setting, the tombs/crypts, the barren deserts all of it. BUT, I adored the towns like Alexandria and their unique Greek architecture. I didn't vote, but something tells me I'll like Odyssey better.
I'll say this, I loved Origins. I put in about 80 hours into the campaign which I finished, just this past June. I liked the game enough that I got the Platinum trophy. Congrats to Ubi for creating what amounts to an entire country, it's a very impressive open world. I liked the Epyptian setting, the tombs/crypts, the barren deserts all of it. BUT, I adored the towns like Alexandria and their unique Greek architecture. I didn't vote, but something tells me I'll like Odyssey better.
One thing that really bothered me in Origins is how you solved everything with violence.
Normally this is not something I'd care about but Origins was really extreme about it. The most insignificant conflict you find in a sidequest? Bayek pulls his sword. In Odyssey, this is greatly reduced due to the dialouge system and general ability to make choices. Although, it's still far from perfect, but a lot better.
I voted Odyssey, i think it's the better and more fun game to play -- I preferred Odyssey's faster, more arcadey combat and I definitely preferred Odyssey's storyline. I was way more invested in it. Although Odyssey gets a huge minus point for the shitty split up ending structure. I think Odyssey's ending, if you combine all of them, would've been absolutely fantastic. But split up like this? Ehhh.... very strange indeed. Not to mention that if you do them in the "wrong" order they can be quite jarring too, especially with characters not acknowledging if you completed an ending. That's just really dumb. And I bet most people will just stop after seeing one ending. And I can't imagine how underwhleming that would be.
But, Odyssey's modern day actually felt interesting for a change (as opposed to Origins' nothingburger) and there were a lot of characters that I actually cared about and liked. In Origins, I honestly only liked Bayek and Aya, and maybe considered Cleopatra somewhat interesting, but that's about it. The middle portion of Origins was full of characters that I was meant to care for, given how Bayek was apparently solving everyone's personal problems, but... yeah. No. Odyssey still has this issue to an extent, but not much more than majority of RPG's, I think. It's way better, especially with the dialouge choices that often allow you to just tell people to sod off.
Origins had a few side quests I liked but most of them were just opportunities for XP. Odyssey, I'd say, most side quests I did, were good to great. There were some quite funny ones too, which was a nice change of pace. I also liked how some sidequests would escalate, which reminded me of the Witcher 3 a bit, where you could be doing a side quest that at first seems utterly simplistic and basic, but soon evolves into something much more interesting.
The one thing that Odyssey let me down with though is the world. Sure it's beautiful and detailed, but nothing comes close to the pyramids or Alexandria in it. Athens felt especially underwhelming, it just looked like any other city in the game really. The tombs in Origins were also genuinely fun to explore, whereas Odyssey ones are... err....they reminded me of FF15's dungeons. Just really basic layouts and almost as if they were randomly generated, with only a handful of assets. The way they spammed snakes on every corner as well-.... like god damn. It doesn't get any more "game-y" than that.
Overall, I expected Odyssey to be "Origins but better in every way". It's not that, but it's close enough.
Normally this is not something I'd care about but Origins was really extreme about it. The most insignificant conflict you find in a sidequest? Bayek pulls his sword. In Odyssey, this is greatly reduced due to the dialouge system and general ability to make choices. Although, it's still far from perfect, but a lot better.
I voted Odyssey, i think it's the better and more fun game to play -- I preferred Odyssey's faster, more arcadey combat and I definitely preferred Odyssey's storyline. I was way more invested in it. Although Odyssey gets a huge minus point for the shitty split up ending structure. I think Odyssey's ending, if you combine all of them, would've been absolutely fantastic. But split up like this? Ehhh.... very strange indeed. Not to mention that if you do them in the "wrong" order they can be quite jarring too, especially with characters not acknowledging if you completed an ending. That's just really dumb. And I bet most people will just stop after seeing one ending. And I can't imagine how underwhleming that would be.
But, Odyssey's modern day actually felt interesting for a change (as opposed to Origins' nothingburger) and there were a lot of characters that I actually cared about and liked. In Origins, I honestly only liked Bayek and Aya, and maybe considered Cleopatra somewhat interesting, but that's about it. The middle portion of Origins was full of characters that I was meant to care for, given how Bayek was apparently solving everyone's personal problems, but... yeah. No. Odyssey still has this issue to an extent, but not much more than majority of RPG's, I think. It's way better, especially with the dialouge choices that often allow you to just tell people to sod off.
Origins had a few side quests I liked but most of them were just opportunities for XP. Odyssey, I'd say, most side quests I did, were good to great. There were some quite funny ones too, which was a nice change of pace. I also liked how some sidequests would escalate, which reminded me of the Witcher 3 a bit, where you could be doing a side quest that at first seems utterly simplistic and basic, but soon evolves into something much more interesting.
The one thing that Odyssey let me down with though is the world. Sure it's beautiful and detailed, but nothing comes close to the pyramids or Alexandria in it. Athens felt especially underwhelming, it just looked like any other city in the game really. The tombs in Origins were also genuinely fun to explore, whereas Odyssey ones are... err....they reminded me of FF15's dungeons. Just really basic layouts and almost as if they were randomly generated, with only a handful of assets. The way they spammed snakes on every corner as well-.... like god damn. It doesn't get any more "game-y" than that.
Overall, I expected Odyssey to be "Origins but better in every way". It's not that, but it's close enough.
Odyssey.
It helps that the story isn't disjointed from the start. Origins began with a lot of screaming and forcing somebody to put on a knife mask? Then you had to do sidequests later to get more details on who and why that happened via flashbacks. It was just weird. It was tough to like Bayek for me also, I just felt like his personality kept swinging all over the place. In sidequests he'd be all like happy-go-lucky or protective, but in main story he was just always impulsive, angry, and even anti-social. I'm not even saying that's wrong for a guy in his position, it was just odd compared to his demeanor in side-content.
The benefit of Odyssey's dialog choices I suppose is allowing you to play Kassandra in a much more personality consistent way.
It helps that the story isn't disjointed from the start. Origins began with a lot of screaming and forcing somebody to put on a knife mask? Then you had to do sidequests later to get more details on who and why that happened via flashbacks. It was just weird. It was tough to like Bayek for me also, I just felt like his personality kept swinging all over the place. In sidequests he'd be all like happy-go-lucky or protective, but in main story he was just always impulsive, angry, and even anti-social. I'm not even saying that's wrong for a guy in his position, it was just odd compared to his demeanor in side-content.
The benefit of Odyssey's dialog choices I suppose is allowing you to play Kassandra in a much more personality consistent way.
I have to vote Odyssey. I was surprised it was as good as it is. I really enjoyed the Egyptian mythological themes in Origins, but I think Odyssey is overall a better game, though I'm still of the opinion the world map in Odyssey is just a bit too big.
I liked Origins world and characters better, Bayek is still the better protagonist. Odyssey has the better story and gameplay, although both stories fall hard at the end, with Origins having a better ending.... (Odyssey family ending sacrificed too much on the name of player choice it ends up being a mess).
... it's hard to choose lol
... it's hard to choose lol
Both games, in terms of their stories, feel like they're made by committee. It feels like "story" is just another feature, instead of a story that some person or group of people on the team wanted to tell. As such, I'd actually say I'd prefer neither.
It probably is a tie for me.
Odyssey starts way stronger with a more likeable main character (Kassandra for me) while the start of Origins is a mess. But I ended up warming up a lot to Bayek and Aya and really appreciating their journey. Odyssey with it's three endings feels a little disjointed and I didn't like the personal storyline end.
I prefer the Greek setting, but felt the the world in Origins is way better designed. It succeeded in giving the impression of being alive, connected and believable. The islands in Odyssey felt way to separated from each other and too much... "video-gamey". There is some very interesting regions but it never gave the "awe" the Origins did.
However, while there is still is a lot of junk in there, the sidequests (that I also count as world building) in Odyssey are a huge step-up from Origins, with some memorable characters and some completely optional quests that were given proper production values and also some little ones that manage to have good writing like the little girl and her clay dolls.
Gameplay wise Odyssey is better, but it suffers from some bloat. Part of it was they throwing everything to see what sticks which results in a uneven experience, but another part is they being desperate to keep the player "engagement" for longer: "radiant" side quests, random leaders and conquest battles, nemesis-like system for mercenaries and so on. Origins is more lean but it felt more polished. Reminds me a little of the Darksiders 1 and 2 comparison (but not nearly as extreme).
In the end, while I probably think Odyssey is the better game that addressed of the issues of the previous game (while adding some others) I think I will remember Origins world a little more fondly so I can't really decide which is one is better.... so I will take the cowards way out and say "too close".
Odyssey starts way stronger with a more likeable main character (Kassandra for me) while the start of Origins is a mess. But I ended up warming up a lot to Bayek and Aya and really appreciating their journey. Odyssey with it's three endings feels a little disjointed and I didn't like the personal storyline end.
I prefer the Greek setting, but felt the the world in Origins is way better designed. It succeeded in giving the impression of being alive, connected and believable. The islands in Odyssey felt way to separated from each other and too much... "video-gamey". There is some very interesting regions but it never gave the "awe" the Origins did.
However, while there is still is a lot of junk in there, the sidequests (that I also count as world building) in Odyssey are a huge step-up from Origins, with some memorable characters and some completely optional quests that were given proper production values and also some little ones that manage to have good writing like the little girl and her clay dolls.
Gameplay wise Odyssey is better, but it suffers from some bloat. Part of it was they throwing everything to see what sticks which results in a uneven experience, but another part is they being desperate to keep the player "engagement" for longer: "radiant" side quests, random leaders and conquest battles, nemesis-like system for mercenaries and so on. Origins is more lean but it felt more polished. Reminds me a little of the Darksiders 1 and 2 comparison (but not nearly as extreme).
In the end, while I probably think Odyssey is the better game that addressed of the issues of the previous game (while adding some others) I think I will remember Origins world a little more fondly so I can't really decide which is one is better.... so I will take the cowards way out and say "too close".
Origins weirdly has a few things that seem better executed than Odyssey — Arena fights where you get a choice about whether to kill your opponent, chariot racing, elephant battles and a more granular animal skin upgrade economy (as in, you gotta seek out particular animals to upgrade certain stuff).
I say 'weirdly' because in every other department Odyssey refines or perfects the systems in the previous game and uses its systems in an impressively joined up way to take you around its expansive map. The largest and most impactful difference though is in the quality of the writing and execution of side quests, where Ubisoft seems to have really learned the lesson of the Witcher 3. It's the first AC game in ages where the emptiness of the go-somewhere-do-x mechanic is offset by the narrative motivation for doing that activity, where the reward is wanting to know what happens next more than XP or loot you don't need.
Origins took the first step of bringing back side quest cut scenes (albeit ones that seemed to be auto-generated) and trying to tell stories with them, but Odyssey has expanded these into multi-part narratives where your choices produce meaningful consequences. There's nothing that beats the Witcher's Bloody Baron quest-line, but some of the more involved side quest lines clearly have that sort of depth in their sights, especially the Silver Islands mini-epic. Moreover, almost all of these side quests quietly foreshadow or reinforce the key decisions you'll make in the main narrative.
I say 'weirdly' because in every other department Odyssey refines or perfects the systems in the previous game and uses its systems in an impressively joined up way to take you around its expansive map. The largest and most impactful difference though is in the quality of the writing and execution of side quests, where Ubisoft seems to have really learned the lesson of the Witcher 3. It's the first AC game in ages where the emptiness of the go-somewhere-do-x mechanic is offset by the narrative motivation for doing that activity, where the reward is wanting to know what happens next more than XP or loot you don't need.
Origins took the first step of bringing back side quest cut scenes (albeit ones that seemed to be auto-generated) and trying to tell stories with them, but Odyssey has expanded these into multi-part narratives where your choices produce meaningful consequences. There's nothing that beats the Witcher's Bloody Baron quest-line, but some of the more involved side quest lines clearly have that sort of depth in their sights, especially the Silver Islands mini-epic. Moreover, almost all of these side quests quietly foreshadow or reinforce the key decisions you'll make in the main narrative.
Pleasing to read praise for Odyssey
I'm a big fan of Origins and yet to play Odyssey. and quite surprised it's widely considered better.
I'm a big fan of Origins and yet to play Odyssey. and quite surprised it's widely considered better.
I think Origins has the most interesting setting of any AC game so far. The closing years of Egypt as a major power, with Greece and Rome trying to horn in on their territory, and all the cheeky stuff they did with the First Civilization stuff hidden inside and under the well-known Egyptian landmarks made for a great open world.
But Odyssey does everything else better. My favourite AC protagonist in Kassandra, and the best story of any AC game. I loved the gameplay and the QOL features they introduced, like turning off fall damage and giving you super fun bullshit like the Rush Assassination. Blending in Greek mythology with the First Civilization made for some wonderful quests, too. It's my favourite game in the whole series.
But Odyssey does everything else better. My favourite AC protagonist in Kassandra, and the best story of any AC game. I loved the gameplay and the QOL features they introduced, like turning off fall damage and giving you super fun bullshit like the Rush Assassination. Blending in Greek mythology with the First Civilization made for some wonderful quests, too. It's my favourite game in the whole series.
I enjoyed Origins more because I felt like more of an assassin throughout the whole story and still prefer a few mechanics from that game. Odyssey is excellent though.
Despite the lack of "Assassin's Creed" in Odyssey, I enjoyed it more than Origins. I like the main character better (Kassandra), I like the setting much more and combat is more fun. The beginning of Origins was a disaster, it took me some time to start enjoying the game, with Odyssey I had fun from minute one.
Overall, Origins is a better AC game but personally I think Odyssey is a better open world game. Also hunting the cult was a blast.
Overall, Origins is a better AC game but personally I think Odyssey is a better open world game. Also hunting the cult was a blast.
AC: Origins was the first and only time I thought the series approached Rockstar quality in building its open world. Spending hours getting lost in the desert, discovering tombs in the middle of nowhere, or just watching the priests as they tend to desiccated corpses.
Odyssey, meanwhile, feels a bit copy-paste in its world design in a way I didn't detect as easily in Origins. I think those that like systemic games will likely enjoy Odyssey more for its small but significant gameplay improvements. Those that prefer immersion and world detail, though, I think are better off with Origins.
Odyssey, meanwhile, feels a bit copy-paste in its world design in a way I didn't detect as easily in Origins. I think those that like systemic games will likely enjoy Odyssey more for its small but significant gameplay improvements. Those that prefer immersion and world detail, though, I think are better off with Origins.
I don't like this weird emphasis on sailing that this series developed after Assassin's Creed 3.
Origins gets my vote because of that.
Origins gets my vote because of that.
Odyssey is objectively better (both are really good) but it would have fared better probably from being released a bit further away from Origins. Especially after the dlc of Origins it's easy to burn out on AC a bit.
Egypt vs Greece setting is a toss up, really like both
Egypt vs Greece setting is a toss up, really like both
Odyssey by far; Origin was a great game but I found the story to be a tad sloppy until roughly mid-way through the game...but holy shit at its ending though!
Haven't beaten Odyssey yet but I find it to be better in every field.
Haven't beaten Odyssey yet but I find it to be better in every field.
Odyssey is definitely better. I say that as someone who has completed Origins and all of its DLC, and has put 20 hours or more into Odyssey. I look forward to playing more of it.
When Odyssey first came out, I played it and wasn't sure if it was better. I had a good opinion of Origins and still do, but held it loftily. Then I went back to Origins to play through its two DLCs while I was still playing Odyssey and noticed how much more polish Odyssey has in its mechanics and design. The combat is a lot better and more fluid, the abilities are better, you can heal, there's more to do, etc.
Greece also offers a better open world
When Odyssey first came out, I played it and wasn't sure if it was better. I had a good opinion of Origins and still do, but held it loftily. Then I went back to Origins to play through its two DLCs while I was still playing Odyssey and noticed how much more polish Odyssey has in its mechanics and design. The combat is a lot better and more fluid, the abilities are better, you can heal, there's more to do, etc.
Greece also offers a better open world
Call it a pet peeve, but this thread is proof enough that Odyssey is not objectively better.
I didn't play Origins cause I don't care for the setting, but I'm about 55hrs into Odyssey and it's pretty incredible. Dialogue and combat systems are great, Kassandra and story are awesome.
The Cultist system surprised me the most. It's really fun hunting them down and getting cool gear.
I might grab the Gold edition of Origins when it's on sale one of these days. Black Friday?
The Cultist system surprised me the most. It's really fun hunting them down and getting cool gear.
I might grab the Gold edition of Origins when it's on sale one of these days. Black Friday?
Well actually it is not how I'm reading the comments in the thread! People can surely like Origins better, but in terms of systems Odyssey builds on Origins. So objectively better. Taste however remains subjective
It's not objectively better in every area, that much is obvious.
