Feature Article

Assassin's Creed Should Go Smaller With Its Setting, Not Bigger

GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Ubisoft should be crafting smaller, more personal stories in Assassin's Creed.

Reports have surfaced that Ubisoft is working on a smaller-scale, stealth-focused Assassin's Creed game. The game supposedly began as a post-launch expansion for Assassin's Creed Valhalla, but will now launch as the next mainline game prior to the release of Assassin's Creed Infinity. The reports say that Valhalla's Basim Ibn Ishaq (a Hidden One who allies with Eivor and her clan early in the game) will be the new game's protagonist. Our original 2021 feature, which argues that Assassin's Creed was in need of a scaled-down game, follows.


Since the start, each mainline Assassin's Creed game has typically grown in size and superseded that of the previous title, with the three games in the prequel trilogy--Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla--dwarfing all the others (with the exception of Black Flag, which continues to have one of the largest maps in the franchise to date). And though I've enjoyed my long journeys across the deserts of Ptolemaic Egypt, war-torn island communities of ancient Greece, and fields of Anglo-Saxon England, I think it's time that Ubisoft created a smaller setting for Assassin's Creed. A smaller setting could condense the overall experience of Assassin's Creed, which would ensure certain storylines can be better realized and that players can more easily experience the best that the game has to offer.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Assassin's Creed Infinity Sounds Exhausting

To Better Serve The Story

Now it's worth pointing out that I don't think a big map is inherently a bad thing. Though I still have my qualms with the pacing of Odyssey's story (especially Chapter 5, which can seriously drag), there's such a sense of joy in riding your horse to the top of a hill, looking out at the glistening ocean, noticing a tiny speck of another island in the far distance, and knowing that you can set sail for it and reach it without encountering a single loading screen. Odyssey wants you to explore because your character, Kassandra, wants to explore after being cooped up on the same island for most of her life.

Of the three games in the prequel trilogy, Odyssey has managed to take advantage of its staggeringly large map size the best, utilizing a fully realized Greece to deliver on the promise of sending the player on an odyssey to reunite their biological family, only to discover that family is what you make of it--blood does not have to define it.

That's the map acting in service to its story; Kassandra's tale is an adventure, with some awesome side stories scattered around the vast map. There are encounters such as meeting Daphnae at the very start of the game and learning about the Daughters of Artemis, an all-women community that involves you in a side-quest that continues until you nearly reach the endgame level cap, as well as running into and falling in love with Kyra over the course of the phenomenal nine-part Silver Islands questline. It all helps sell why Kassandra would regularly deviate from her path--which, in theory, should have been rather linear--and stretch her journey over the course of years. It's a lifelong odyssey to discover the meaning of family, which is reflected in the giant setting that is filled to the brim with many families to meet; some are dysfunctional, others are loving, but they all shape Kassandra through the decisions you make for her, ultimately resulting in one of several possible families she can bring together by the end of the campaign.

You can't really say the same for Origins and Valhalla, both of which possess stories that suffer a bit from the large settings they take place in. Origins is the story of a cop and his wife and how their quest for revenge twisted their actions so that they protected those in power and didn't serve the people. The map is large and filled with many side quests and activities but rarely do they have much to do with the fact that you're aiding Cleopatra in seizing control away from others to benefit her. Most quests actually see you aid the people, which goes against the overall story that Origins is trying to tell--only a few storylines support how Bayek and Aya are in the wrong for most of the game. But they're drowned out; the setting is so big that it has to be filled with things to do in order to avoid having a large, empty map.

Valhalla isn't much better. England is huge and thus filled with dozens of side activities, collectibles, and storylines that drown out the handful of quests that are tied to its overall narrative: The story of an invader trying to escape her cursed fate, only to learn that living for the here and now is a far more satisfying life than striving for a glorious afterlife. It's difficult to invest in Eivor's struggle to avoid her fate when she spends so much of her time across the course of Valhalla doing things that don't relate back to that, or at the very least don't seem to.

To Better Serve The Gameplay

And beyond just serving the story, there's another problem that you can run into when you have a huge setting: You fill it with too many things to do. I've spent over 41 hours in Origins, over 142 hours in Odyssey, and just under 100 hours in Valhalla--and I'm still nowhere near close to completing all the side activities, finding all the collectibles, and meeting all the characters in each one. There's just so much to do because a big map needs a lot to fill it up in order to not feel empty.

This problem is especially egregious in Valhalla, which actually tries to do something fundamentally different for an Assassin's Creed game: It doesn't tie all of its storylines and quests to symbols on a map. It's a wonderful change that has led to some effective storytelling and sense of discovery in the game, but so much of it feels wasted in the avalanche of stuff to do.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

And to be clear, I'm not even talking about the quests like finding Excalibur or lifting Mjolnir, which require you to find a lot of items hidden behind some seemingly unrelated quests. You can luck into doing that just by reading Valhalla's Achievement/Trophy list. No, I'm talking about the really obscure things, the stuff that you will not find unless you carefully read every document and explore every inch of England.

Like, take the "quest" to discover the fate of Victus, a long-dead magister for the Hidden Ones. There's no reason to even think the quest exists. To "start" it, you'll need to find five Hidden One bureaus scattered across England, notice notes in each one written by some guy named Victus, discover pieces of Victus' armor that cryptically reveal his fate is still not known, and then just think to yourself, "Ya know, I bet I can figure this out," without any prompting from the game.

That search will ultimately require you to carefully observe seemingly unimportant details carved into random towers, do a little triangulation to find the location of a hidden well that's not marked on your map, discover the right book of knowledge in order to unlock the necessary ability to open a secret crypt, crack the cypher on an encrypted note, and then translate some Latin.

There's no concrete reward for doing any of this, no Achievement or weapon or anything, beyond the joy of just figuring out another piece of the overall lore of Assassin's Creed. And there are dozens of other unmarked "quests" like this across Valhalla that you can only find and complete through careful observation and sound reasoning--some do give you concrete rewards like a powerful bow or spear, but they're all primarily serving the purpose of fleshing out the world and telling stories. The community of players still playing Valhalla are finding new ones all the time, working together to slowly piece together more story and lore, much like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild community banded together to discover the game's undisclosed mechanics and secrets following its release.

And I would think all of that is incredibly cool if it wasn't for the fact that all of these storylines are so easy to miss because Valhalla's map is massive and the main campaign is 60 to 80 hours long. That's a staggeringly long commitment for a single-player game, especially one like Valhalla that has more maps on top of England (such as Norway, where the game begins) and has gotten more through post-launch DLC (like Ireland in Wrath of the Druids and France in The Siege of Paris). So it's not one giant map--it's one giant map and several other not-as-big-but-still-pretty-big maps. When you hide cool questlines, lore-changing Easter eggs (like connections to every single mainline game in the series), or secret rewards (like the best piece of musical composition for an Assassin's Creed game since Ezio's Family) behind a towering wall of other so-so stuff to do, it's unlikely that most of the playerbase is actually going to see them.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

All that Valhalla (and to an extent, Origins) does would be better served in a smaller setting where the player can take the time to stop and really look at the world around them. So I'd love to see Ubisoft do just that, embracing less expansive locations as the settings for its Assassin's Creed games. Plus, with the power of the new generation of consoles, Assassin's Creed could create a small town or city setting the likes of which we've never seen. Instead of a massive map that captures a whole country, Ubisoft could make a super detailed location where all that Xbox Series X|S and PS5 power is devoted to creating some incredible in-game systems, like more reactive AI, a more in-depth social-stealth system, and a wider array of enemy types. And then you can also drop the cluttered assortment of points-of-interest; if an area is small enough, you can rely on environmental context clues to inform what the player should do next instead of handing them a checklist. The best quests in Valhalla could just be a staple part of the franchise in a smaller setting with less distractions.

The smaller details are what makes Origins and Valhalla such special games, Ubisoft just gave them too much room to breathe and then overshadowed them with too much other stuff to do--usually stuff that does nothing to support the underlying narrative of the main campaign. Bigger can mean better, and Odyssey is proof of that. But not every Assassin's Creed game needs to one-up its predecessor by being the biggest game the franchise has ever seen. There's room for smaller settings that allow Ubisoft to better support its efforts to experiment a bit more with the types of stories it wants to tell and gameplay it wants to offer.


jordanramee

Jordan Ramée

Jordan Ramée has been covering video games since 2016 and tabletop games since 2020, using his unhealthy obsessions to write what he'd argue is compelling content (we won't tell him if you don't). Do not let him know that you're playing Hollow Knight--he will take that as a sign that you wish to talk about the lore for the next five hours.

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

Follow
Back To Top
103 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for stat84
Stat84

91

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Smaller? Ubisoft? lmao. I lost interest in Valhalla after 10 hrs, lost interest in Far Cry 6 after 12...same repetitive crap over and over again.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

Edited By deth420

I agree with some of this. The worlds are filled with to much needless bloat. loot that doesnt matter, and stories (side quests) that dont really fit with the main story.

case in point dying light 2. you are supposed to be this badass from out side of the walls. apparently you accomplished this with no skills? also on this note, you are tough and faced off against zombies, and other crazy stuff to survive, and how many times did you get sucker punched in the face.

I used to like the assassins creed games. at the time they released they were something different. and the back story of this war going on through history was pretty compelling. then they just seemed to drop all of that in favor of loot mechanics, and microtransactions. the games became like every other ubisoft game, bland.

I havent finished and AC in since 2. they just all become the same after awhile. I recently tried AC valhalla. After a few hours, I uninstalled the game and uplay. I just couldnt take it any more. I mean what happened to assassinations?

I dont think large or small worlds are the problem, its the content. to much, or to little, and it just throws the game off. they just need to strike a better balance....and stop making all of there games look exactly the same.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Iemander
Iemander

757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So AC has never been this successful and now they need to change? Improve sure, but let’s not reinvent the wheel for such a growing franchise.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hexus1985
Hexus1985

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Before they even consider making new games. They should fix the ones they already have, Valhalla has a game breaking bug that is stopping hundreds of players from finishing the main story. All of this after 5 MONTHS of releasing the game. Shame on you ubisoft! Please help spreading the word.

https://discussions.ubisoft.com/topic/88357/unable-to-progress-with-a-brewing-storm-after-waking-up-post-here/212?lang=en-US

Upvote • 
Avatar image for solidsolo
solidsolo

994

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

I disagree wholeheartedly. I put 125 hours into Valhalla and was depressed when it was all over. I rather wish it was larger/bigger!!!

I do feel the AC story is somewhat lost but I didn't miss it. I was pulled into Animus total (2) times and hated when it happened. I turned around and got back into England asap.

This could've been a stand-a-lone Viking RPG and I was OK with that.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kutraz
kutraz

802

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Nope, the games feel off because the assassin storyline is nowhere to be found. Ever since origins came out, AC has just been about looting for weapons and conquering areas. Also, microtransactions are through the roof, the most interesting gear is locked behind a paywall.

The size is irrelevant, the problem is that the characters are all over the place, Odyssey at least had a villain that you knew was the end goal. Valhalla is all about building your camp until the end of time. Bring back stealth and a story that is worth the 100+ hr investment.

2 • 
Avatar image for jergernice1
JergerNIce1

199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 5

i prefer the big open world. just make sure theres a semi variety between areas in look feel and maybe a bit of gameplay. also 70 hours is a bit much....valhalla feels too big. horizon felt perfect...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gns
GNS

965

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

That's what I've been saying for years ever since Syndicate came-out...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Musicsvictim
Musicsvictim

206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 75

User Lists: 1

Definitely agree that the maps should be more condensed. While it is nice to have a variety of activities throughout the map, I would much rather have a handful of quest givers that we progress with throughout the entire campaign (similar to how it went with the rest of Ravensthorpe in Valhalla) than having a lot of one shot side quests. I barely remember any of the side activities from Origins, Odyssey and even Valhalla, but I remember quite a lot of the Homestead quests from 3 (which I didn't particularly enjoy) because I got to progress through people's stories.

2 • 
Avatar image for Tanix24
Tanix24

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Disagree. Odyssey and Valhalla were great because they were big. They dont necessarily need to be massive in scope as you often see area's where they ran out of time to populate the area with content...

But I personally enjoy the large worlds with lots to explore... Small worlds often feel like tunnel vision... AC is the great open worlds that inspired Breath of the Wild which everyone hails as one of the greatest games ever...

Just having a big world to be big is not enough... but a big world filled with different things to explore... Sign me up.

2 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19936

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By mogan  Moderator

Yeah, I think the AC series could do with smaller, tighter stories and game worlds. Origins and Odyssey (especially Odyssey) were absolutely massive, but so much of the content was repetitive and shallow, and the main story was spread very thin across so much map. Valhalla feels like it's going in the same direction, even though I enjoy the content and writing in that game more.

3 • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By illegal_peanut

THANK YOU!!!

The worlds are interesting but very, very empty feelings. They need to focus on what they're good at and not try to fuel this false since of grand scale illusion. Literally, "Less is more".

AC has felt like being in the world's biggest store that sells as many different products as a lemonade stand. With its later games.

3 • 
Avatar image for does286moss403
does286moss403

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm with Jordan here. I came back to AC for Odyssey. Loved the first phase before the boat battles, where everything took place on the one island and one adjacent island.

Even in Megara, towards meeting the Wolf--I'm lost many times. I can't even tell what half teh icons on the heads up display signify. Icons seem to disappear too quickly when you get close to the objective. I do honor all the things ACO gets right, a tremendous accomplishment. For those of us writers sensitive to game bloat--it has its costs.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for CrouchingWeasel
CrouchingWeasel

339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By CrouchingWeasel

Anyone who doesn't like the size, length or style of the newer AC games can go and find something else to play. I don't see why Ubisoft should change their games to suit the extreme minority of gamers who want to whine about getting too much value for their dollar or in other words complain about the length of the campaign, the size of the map or game mechanics when plenty of people are more than happy to get hundreds of hours of gameplay for their money. If you don't like it you're more than welcome to spend your money on something else, Ubisoft is doing something right with AC or they wouldn't be selling millions of copies.

2 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

@CrouchingWeasel said:

Ubisoft is doing something right with AC or they wouldn't be selling millions of copies.

people are just suckers.

thats they same reason EA games sells millions of copies of their sports games. They arent good games most of the time, but people want the lastest shiny thing.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jergernice1
JergerNIce1

199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 5

@CrouchingWeasel: agree. after playing valhalla. cyberpunk seemed small

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sladakrobot

@CrouchingWeasel: How do you know that it is not you who are the minority in liking it like it is?
Ppl can still like the game but that doesnt mean they are ok with everything in the game

3 • 
Avatar image for wisdomcjs
WisdomCJS

44

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By WisdomCJS

I agree with this. If they're going to keep going with this design and asthetic, then the next game's map could benefit from being condensed. For me all 3 of the recent AC games have had this very noticeable feeling where you become increasingly tired of going from one place to next as you get more and more hours played, way more so than with other similar games.

7 • 
Avatar image for saadred
saadred

152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Edited By saadred

@wisdomcjs: So true, and the story also becomes uninteresting as you keep progressing. I mean, I am a huge AC fan, and I loved all the games with 4 and Ezio saga being my all-time fav. Making it a bit smaller with more densely populated with activities and stuff to do is fine.

4 • 
Avatar image for naomha1
naomha1

1095

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

*eye roll*

No. No, it doesn't need to be smaller or more personal for YOU, Mr. Ramee. I LOVE a "staggering long commitment" for a single player game. It is why I play massive RPGs. The Divinity series, Dragon's Age, Baldur's Gate, etc. They have the potential to be a couple hundred hours long if you look and try to do everything. That appeals to a LOT of people. The fact games are bigger and more fleshed out these days just adds to the amount of exploration and finding you can actually do in a game. Take Divinity 2 for example. There's side quests you never get to do unless you play with certain members in your party. Some quests become completely closed off to you should you have the wrong person in your party. Assassin's Creed games, especially the last 3, have been an absolute blast to play and find what I can in the game. I've easily got about 2 hundred hours in Origins BECAUSE I wanted to explore every last nook and cranny in the game to see what I could find, what I could best and what I could unearth. These are games MADE to open up exploration opportunities and for discovery to be front and center. There's no reason in the world you have to spend over 100 hours in the game. The last 3 AC games could be completed in much less than half that time. The fact that YOU spent 100 hours or more in the games TESTIFIES to the fact that they accomplished what you want to negate.

Man, I'd hate to see how you folks would have spent gaming 20 years ago when you had to hand draw maps in the Wizardry games to follow along or physically CALL people to find something you couldn't because the internet was a BABY at the time. Heck, even READ a DnD manual so you understood the edition rules in a game. These HUGE, open world games are something I'd never thought I'd see 30 years ago. Then 20 years ago they got bigger. Now, this gen, I'm blown away by the offerings game devs create. Want a shorter game? Go play one and let the big dogs roam this land. We're having fun and don't want it to change. At all.

3 • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@naomha1: I grew up with games where not to get lost i had to draw the maps myself but even back then,games started to appear with automaps coz it was a crime creating worlds with little to no orientation and vague npc hints.
Especially those fps rpgs with levels looking all the same in setting and graphics.

If devs create a big world with alot to discover and quests,i am all for it...but often its like levels are huge and almost empty and it just costs you plenty of time travelling back and forth...waste of playing time

2 • 
Avatar image for CrouchingWeasel
CrouchingWeasel

339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@naomha1:

I couldn't agree more. As far as I'm concerned earned if you don't like the size or length of a game you're more than welcome to turn it off & go & play yet another trashy CoD or Battlefield single player campaign. If enough people thought the way the writer of this article does & wanted to blow money just to play a short campaign then the AC games wouldn't be as popular as they are. Bring on bigger games I say, the bigger the game the more you're getting for your money.

2 • 
Avatar image for Dilandau88
Dilandau88

937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I adored Odyssey. I think it was perfect. I'd love to see an Ancient Rome AC.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for couly
couly

6285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

@Dilandau88 said:

I adored Odyssey. I think it was perfect. I'd love to see an Ancient Rome AC.

Brotherhood?

3 • 
Avatar image for saadred
saadred

152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

@couly: Brotherhood and 4

Upvote • 
Avatar image for pcps4xb
PCPS4XB

3653

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Origins was perfect in size for me. I also miss the AC2 and 4 style

3 • 
Avatar image for Voldy26
Voldy26

40

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 120

User Lists: 0

Edited By Voldy26

I have only read the title, and I agree.

3 • 
Avatar image for Sepewrath
Sepewrath

30731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I wish the series would just go back to being about assassinations instead of being historical open worlds. The series almost barely has anything to do with the overall plot of Assassins vs Templars anymore. I miss that style of AC1 and AC2 that made them so unique, the series has lost it and just fallen into generic open world tropes.

10 • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Sepewrath: This is what I've been saying for years.

And I'm not some random hater I've got all the AC main series games (Except the last three.). And I’ve played through some of them twice to three times. And Calling Assassin’s Creed by its name now makes as much sense as calling Animal crossing Assassin's creed, or Mario. Hell, it would make more sense to call Shadow of Mordor, or dishonored assassin's creed now. At least those games are about assassinations.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for alex33x
alex33x

1923

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

@Sepewrath: That's because they should have made a completely different franchise with Valhalla and Odyssey. I like both games more than any AC game out there, I also liked that they are longer and more RPGish. But yes it barely has anything to do with old AC games. So much that I find the small parts you have to play in the present annoying.

3 • 
Avatar image for swantn5
swantn5

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

or you know stop trying to rip off the witcher series i mean that could help as far as rpg goes its a very bad rpg

2 • 
Avatar image for Destructionzz
Destructionzz

821

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 31

User Lists: 0

The bloated content was the reason that I contrary to popular opinion, I think? didn't like it. In a nutshell that was honestly what kept me from loving it, it's not really about hating on it. Loved Origins though. Just enough content, but story-focused.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for michaeldark
michaeldark

227

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

I like the Assassin's Creed games the way they are now. There are not any good action RPG games out there to quench my thirst for exploration and they filled that gap nicely. I wish they had some magic too. Make then even more rpgs!

2 • 
Avatar image for heidern98
Heidern98

282

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

They need to shift focus back to the story telling open world building behind many of the previous games. Everything about this series needs a bit of an adjustment.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for BlindMango
BlindMango

44

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I completely agree, nothing worse than the gigantic pointlessly empty sandbox levels of Assassin's Creed Origins and later. A franchise that used to be known for its detailed and fascinating cities are now known for pointless filler content in an oversized map, pretty sad

3 • 
Avatar image for gunnyninja
gunnyninja

1079

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By gunnyninja

I love huge game worlds. I loved games that take forever to finish. Give me more. I feel invested in games like this. If it's good, I don't want it to end. If it's bad, it doesn't matter how long it is, I likely will never get to the end. I love how Division 2 keeps the endgame alive so you can drop in and play any time. I wish Wildlands was like that. Witcher 3 may be the king of huge games. Origin and Odyssey had great historic worlds that were good enough to be a separate experience without the game. I'm not as enthused about Valhalla. I'll wait for a deep deep sale...

3 • 
Avatar image for pcps4xb
PCPS4XB

3653

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm 25 hrs in and kind of getting bored. A game this size should have better combat. This game just makes me want to go play God of War.

3 • 
Avatar image for arifmunshi83
ArifMunshi83

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@pcps4xb: horizon zero dawn does it just right for me. The upgrades and weapons systems are easy to follow and not endlessly long winded. The combat is really good and the story is good enough to carry you through everything you need to see.

2 • 
Avatar image for pcps4xb
PCPS4XB

3653

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arifmunshi83: yeah I loved zero dawn and it's battles so much I did almost all side stuff

2 • 
Avatar image for majorstefan
majorstefan

102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Valhalla is just excessive. It didn't need to be 75 hours long. It hurt the story in a big way

3 • 
Avatar image for rikku45
rikku45

887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Edited By rikku45

I bet some idiot will think the levelling system is stupid.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Sepewrath
Sepewrath

30731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@rikku45: AC2 is the best in the series and it didn't have any leveling system

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8
deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Some believe that these games are just way too long. But in truth, if you primarily stick to the critical path, you can easily beat this game in 40ish hours. If someone wants to do every single thing in the game, then the playtime can easily extend to North of 100 hours.

So my question is this; Are we getting the best of both worlds, and maybe just don't realize it? It seems like these more recent AC games offers both types of gamers what they might want in terms of content and length. I Plat'd Origins in around 120 hours, and spent around 200 hours completing Odyssey. I started to feel fatigue creep in fairly soon after starting Valhalla, so I decided to mainly stick to the critical path, and beat the game in about 45 hours. It seems to me like each player can decide their level of involvement with these newer AC games, so I'm unsure why anyone would want to take choice away by only appealing to those who would like a smaller game.

I had just as much enjoyment with Valhalla as I did with Origins and Odyssey, and only spent about a 3rd of the time doing it. That's not to say I didn't have other issues with all three games, I'm just referring to whether they should be intentionally smaller.

2 • 
Avatar image for Shantmaster_K
Shantmaster_K

1790

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

As much as I loved Valhalla, I have to agree. It got way too tedious. I love the change with the open setting, but I do miss the intimacy of the older versions.

3 • 
Avatar image for bbq_R0ADK1LL
bbq_R0ADK1LL

1619

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm of the opinion that they should have dropped the AC moniker long ago, but I guess that's never going to happen. Black Flag would have been a better pirate game if it wasn't for all the assassin stuff. I like stealth games, I just don't like when they're hamfistededly smashed together with action games. In recent years, they've basically gone full action-based RPG anyway, although they've still held on to the outside-the-Animus story that nobody's cared about since Revelation.

Personally, I'd like to see the next AC games become smaller. Odyssey took me over a year to finish; it was just too much game. I burned out. I picked it up again. I burned out again. I picked it up again. I played Valhalla through all at once, but that was still really too long. I think a smaller, more concentrated open world would be a better experience. Maybe another game based in a single city would be a nice break in the formula we've had for the last three titles.

What I'd really like to see is an AC game that's only 40-50 hours, including all the side missions. When these games span over 100 hours, it really stretches the game too thin. You end up seeing forts copy-pasted all over the place & the asset repetition becomes very obvious. More importantly, the game loop just becomes too repetitive. If people love the game & want more, throw in some story choices & give them a reason to play through a second time. For the rest of us, just give us a game we'll want to complete once. Focus on quality, not quantity.

2 • 
Avatar image for pappafost
PappaFost

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Valhalla is one of the prettiest game worlds I have seen. Unfortunately it's a mile wide and an inch deep. I stopped at 67 hours with no end in sight.

3 • 
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

I've sort of enjoyed the direction the new AC games gave gone in despite initially hating AC Origins. The focus on combat and lack of focus on stealth--I guess stealth doesn't sell well enough for Ubi these days--was a bit concerning, but after Odyssey and Valhalla I've come around.

Open-world games will always suffer from greater and greater "dilution" of excitement and interest as their game worlds become larger and larger: no matter how much dialogue you put in, or how hard you try to disguise it, an escort quest will always be an escort quest (and a kill X amount of animal until you have Y amount of animal part, and so on).

With that said, Ubisoft is at least trying. And it shows, in my opinion.

TL;DR: I could go in either direction at this point. I'd like to see the AC series eventually wrap up after maybe a Japanese setting and a present-day/near-future setting, so I don't see why they would change things up too much at this point. But at the same time, a focus on more narrative and detail would lend itself well.

Ultimately I am a fan of the large, instanced zones found in games like AC 2/Brotherhood, AC Unity, and Dragon Age: Inquisition (hate that game as people do, but the level design was great); they gain the best of having plenty of space to explore and not actually feel like a single level, while affording the advantage of more detail.

Upvote •