Assassin's Creed needs to focus

[Rebourne07]

Idk if I'm the only one that feels this way, but to me it seems like the push to make Assassin's Creed games bigger and bigger and longer and longer is...not working out. The game has a great story and gameplay, but it just feels stuffed to the brim with filler. The world is huge and yeah it's full of...stuff, but the quality is so watered down by the quantity that it seems counterproductive. After playing Ghost of Tsushima I realized a "smaller" map and less side quests and collectibles just results in a much more polished and focused game. Anyone else wish the games weren't so dang big now?

[funboy1246]

haven't had a chance to play valhalla yet but from what ive seen of origins and odyssey, i would tend to agree with you. i enjoy both games to a degree but like....theres just to much bland samey stuff all over the place and not enough uniqueness to it if you get my meaning. 

[DaivRules]

53 minutes ago, Rebourne07 said:

the push to make Assassin's Creed games bigger and bigger and longer and longer is...not working out. The game has a great story and gameplay, but it just feels stuffed to the brim with filler. The world ... quality is so watered down by the quantity that it seems counterproductive.

 

I realized a "smaller" map and less side quests and collectibles just results in a much more polished and focused game.

 

We are on what, the 15th, Assassin's Creed? Seems like Ubisoft has found their formula quite some time ago and is now settled in.

 

I'm gonna guess that if, somehow, Ubisoft decided to scale down a future AC title, it's going to have the same level of polish and focus as they have, it's just be on a smaller map with less things to do. Because let's face it, they'll be torn apart by angry fingers typing away at making an AC that is so short and isn't worth full price so everyone should boycott it!, and they're not going to take the same amount of time or payroll hours/resources and pour it into a shorter game.

 

You're essentially advocating for what AC: Liberation was, but the quality on that was severely lacking on it's initial release (Vita) and even the HD ports had their issues.

[Conor]

Hey I get that maybe the series isn't what it once was, but it's clearly making Ubisoft tons of more money the way it is now so why would they deviate from that? If the hardcore fans had their way Prince of Persia would still be a thing

[sephirothdude]

The mysteries in valhalla are brilliant I think, far better than any side quest in the last two games, they were boring as hell and by the time I finished the game there was still loads of question marks all over the map.

[DoomsdayVivi]

14 hours ago, DaivRules said:

 

We are on what, the 15th, Assassin's Creed? Seems like Ubisoft has found their formula quite some time ago and is now settled in.

 

I'm gonna guess that if, somehow, Ubisoft decided to scale down a future AC title, it's going to have the same level of polish and focus as they have, it's just be on a smaller map with less things to do. Because let's face it, they'll be torn apart by angry fingers typing away at making an AC that is so short and isn't worth full price so everyone should boycott it!, and they're not going to take the same amount of time or payroll hours/resources and pour it into a shorter game.

 

You're essentially advocating for what AC: Liberation was, but the quality on that was severely lacking on it's initial release (Vita) and even the HD ports had their issues.

 

AC from the original game all the way up to Syndicate are nothing like the recent games. The recent formula started with Origins, and each game has successively gotten bigger and broader, but not necessarily better. I loved Origins and Odyssey overall, but there was definitely filler. 

 

I just plat'd AC: Syndicate. It took about 40 hours and the map was just London. That game was from 2015, so the recent mega-open world thing is pretty new. 

[Vintage__Davis]

15 hours ago, Rebourne07 said:

Anyone else wish the games weren't so dang big now?

Sorry to kind of shift away from the game in question, but I was thinking the same thing when I played Yakuza 0. I compared the map size of Yakuza 0 and GTA 5, and thought about how GTA has a big city but I can't remember much of it as it didn't really feel interesting to me, and how Kamurocho in Yakuza is small but no matter where you look there's something interesting going on.

Edit: also, both are big games, but I could barely bring myself to finishing GTA 5, and I happily 100% and platted Yakuza 0.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Vintage_Davis
Update

[closertim]

Am I the only one that would love to get rid of side quests,  they're boring,  adds nothing new and a waste of time.  Just make the main story better. 

 

As for the map size,  big isn't always best,  it's how you use it that counts.  

[Ac3dUd3-]

They are getting a tad long now yes, however story wise, it became so convoluted no one knew what the hell was going on. At least now Valhalla finishes that story up with the whole roman/greek/Isu god/desmond stupid story. THAT is what I got sick of.

 

The hidden ones and the order of the ancients I think is not needed, they just need to go back to Assassin's vs Templar 

[sepheroithisgod]

I'll never understand people complaining that a game has too much content...

[SnowxSakura]

13 minutes ago, sepheroithisgod said:

I'll never understand people complaining that a game has too much content...

I can if all the content is bland filler, pointless fetch quests and the like

[bikeman223]

I haven't played it yet, but isn't Valhalla a little bit smaller than Origins/Odyssey map-wise? I suppose that doesn't make a difference if they fill it to brim with mysteries/wealth. 

[Caesar Clown]

There was a problem in Odyssey where the story just bloats in the middle and you have to do quite a bit of filler. It happens again in Valhalla, but not quite as bad. The exploration is no where as bad as Odyssey, and I find it really fun. The change from side-quests to short little events is perfect, they're not as long and some just take seconds.

[sepheroithisgod]

21 minutes ago, SnowxSakura said:

I can if all the content is bland filler, pointless fetch quests and the like

That's a fair point, but what is counted as filler is very subjective. For instance, I don't quite understand why people have turned against fetch quests. They've always been a part of gaming since the get-go. Heck, Death Stranding is basically a game dedicated to fetch quests.

 

Luckily, that isn't AC Valhalla. They purposely cut out a lot of the fat from Odessey. Replacing the hundreds of throw away quests with much more focused mysteries. While the OP argues Valhalla isn't focused, I have to disagree, it's definitely the most focused out of the new styled AC games. Each region is separate and fits the story nicely.

[ShahinMiah]

37 minutes ago, sepheroithisgod said:

I'll never understand people complaining that a game has too much content...

Im with you on that one ?

 

Valhalla was straight up an amazing game. Sure perhaps it wasn’t tailored towards the Assassins storyline as much and sure it would’ve done just as good if it was just called Valhalla but with all the ridiculous and stupid side quests like the guy with an axe in his head, things like that are what makes a game such as this one, an amazing game.
 

Map size? Who cares really? The bigger the map, the more visual beauty you get to encounter and see what the technology of this generation can do. 

 

People who complain about extra content that isn’t ‘necessary’ well it quite is. Developers are showing you the beauty of the game they’ve made. Rather than criticise about how big the map is, how there are pointless side quests and activities, you should enjoy their game. Enjoy their story, the gameplay, the action, sounds, music and the art of the game world. Appreciate it because the devs have put a shit ton of hours developing and trying to perfect their game world. I don’t know a single person that has criticised and enjoyed the game fully. Sure enjoyed bits here and there but to the extent of enjoying everything? No I haven’t.

 

You may call me a fanboy or whatever, but no, I just appreciate every game I play because in all honesty, about 99% of the games on my profile, I have actually quite to thoroughly enjoyed playing and Valhalla? That for me is easily a 10/10. 

[Carol]

I don’t mean to offend anyone, but, for me, Odyssey was one of the worst games I’ve ever played and a game that I fully regret spending money on. I will never understand how it’s such a loved game. The open-world is beautiful and that’s about it; the content of the missions is extremely superficial. It just seems a shameful imitation of The Witcher 3, where, everything, from the story, to the characters, dialogues, missions and gameplay, is so rich and interesting.

And I love all the other AC games! I have all the unique AC platinums (with the exception of Valhalla) and most of the games were solid and fantastic!

 I understand that things have to change and evolve, but what happened to AC is not exactly what I call an evolution. I will play Valhalla someday and I really hope it’s a better experience, but I have my doubts...

 

[wardragon989]

20 hours ago, Carol said:

I don’t mean to offend anyone, but, for me, Odyssey was one of the worst games I’ve ever played and a game that I fully regret spending money on. I will never understand how it’s such a loved game. The open-world is beautiful and that’s about it; the content of the missions is extremely superficial. It just seems a shameful imitation of The Witcher 3, where, everything, from the story, to the characters, dialogues, missions and gameplay, is so rich and interesting.

And I love all the other AC games! I have all the unique AC platinums (with the exception of Valhalla) and most of the games were solid and fantastic!

 I understand that things have to change and evolve, but what happened to AC is not exactly what I call an evolution. I will play Valhalla someday and I really hope it’s a better experience, but I have my doubts...

 

 

I agree that Odyssey started the whole downward spiral, but I believe Vahalla is on par with Vahalla with repeitive structured missions.

• Origins felt meaningful, I remember sitting through; listening and feeling the world.
• Odyssey is the first AC game in a long time I started skipping the NPC interacton dialogue, because I knew most of it wasn't worth listnening to. The redeeming feature for me early on was Kass's sass with her reactions which I would always stop to hear
• Vahalla again was another AC game I skipped dialogue (outside main missions). Oh ok you have a problem, maybe explore a cave to find treasure? Oh you just want me to move something. Oh another issue I can help with! You want to be saved from this solider *mission complete* eh? The missions feel very empty, mainly because they don't world build the area you going to and as you mentioned filler-y.

The problem for me, at least, is the world grew 10x but the missions didn't. If everything was strunk down, I think these random missions, dialogue etc would have made sense but because you travel so far to get to one the ambition is lost when its just an odd task.

Edited December 23, 2020 by wardragon989

[SolidJD]

It doesn’t feel like Assassin’s Creed anymore. If they released this without the “Assassin’s Creed” tag on the front, you’d consider it a decent Viking game. It’s not a very good AC game. 
 

miss the days of AC 1-3

[dieselmanchild]

So far out of the 3 new Assassin’s Creed games, I’ve only played Origins. But I thought Origins was a fantastic new direction for the series which let’s be honest - was getting quite stale.

 

Origins seemed huge and vast, with a world that was teeming with living, breathing characters and NPCs. It was a massive game compared to the earlier entries in the series and the light RPG mechanics they added definitely added a typical RPG grind to the gameplay loop. But by the time I finished I thought it felt nearly perfect in length and scope for what it was. It didn’t wear out it’s welcome for me.

 

From what I’ve heard about Odyssey, it basically took the blueprint from Origins and expanded everything tenfold. And now Valhalla has reportedly done the same yet again. I can’t judge either of these two games yet as I haven’t played them, but with the times required to beat (and platinum) I think these games sound like they quickly devolve into a tired, tedious experience, especially with the DLC involved. Looking at the trophy guide estimates for Odyssey and all the DLCs, I can easily see that game crossing the line from fun to exhausting pretty quickly.

 

Sometimes bigger really isn’t better. I’d much rather have a smaller world filled with life and packed with meaningful content, than a massive world, breathtaking in scale, that just feels jam packed with empty and lifeless repetition. 

[Rebourne07]

On 12/22/2020 at 7:14 AM, SnowxSakura said:

I can if all the content is bland filler, pointless fetch quests and the like

Exactly

[steel6burgh]

On 12/21/2020 at 2:55 PM, Rebourne07 said:

Idk if I'm the only one that feels this way, but to me it seems like the push to make Assassin's Creed games bigger and bigger and longer and longer is...not working out. The game has a great story and gameplay, but it just feels stuffed to the brim with filler. The world is huge and yeah it's full of...stuff, but the quality is so watered down by the quantity that it seems counterproductive. After playing Ghost of Tsushima I realized a "smaller" map and less side quests and collectibles just results in a much more polished and focused game. Anyone else wish the games weren't so dang big now?

absolutely spot on with your analysis.  long travel times between destinations, fetch quests that have no meaning, endless locations, and vintage points.  80 hours of these things and only 20 to 30 of the story.   The assassins creed world could be great if they made them more story and linear.  I could imagine how good a Assassins Creed could be made if it were made like a naughty dog game such as last of us.  To me this would be a welcome change for the franchise.  The open world formula needs to be eliminated not made bigger.  They should take 3 years off and reinvent the franchise entirely.

[Slipknot_Fan007]

I don't think people would complain as much if this game didn't require 100% completion for the platinum... because from what I've experienced so far through Valhalla is that most side things can be skipped altogether if wanted, and people can just solely do story missions. I'm fully enjoying Valhalla and all it has to offer, sure some side quests are pointless but most go quick and are easy regardless... besides, I'd rather pay full price for a game that has too much to do rather than not enough. 

[Eagle-RP]

I would disagree. I started playing the series since Assassins Creed 2 and that has been my favorite until I played Odyssey. I love this new RPG style, big open world type of Assassin Creed now. Gives you a lot of things to do and a nice world to see, especially if you're playing in 4k on a nice TV. I absolutely love visiting every view point and doing the leap of faith.

[Voland44]

we had smaller liberation, rogue, syndicate. but i dont see many ppl talked about them(excluding fans ofc). anyway, i dont really get about polishing thing. gameplay mechanics, story quests and world maded by different ppl. so if world would be smaller two first things still wouldnt be any better

[arsenal4life1471]

@Voland44 rogue and syndicate where some of the best games i feel