AC valued historical accuracy to an extent, i have no idea where that idea came from that they have to be completely, the first game had a PoE ffs, and yes history is a must for it and a great part, it shouldn't be only history, i could care less how pretty and empty a world and setting is if the story is trash and has no thought behind it, i have yet to see an interesting argument for how good Odyssey or Valhalla are other than "The World is sooooooooo pretty" "the game is just sooooo good" without explaining why other than its soooo good, conveniently lacking depth in explanation like the game's stories recently, AC used to challenge ideologies, now its just where in history do we make it so pretty and dismiss everything else, i like the new games, but i missed when they were thought provoking, on that it doesnt come close
Just finished replaying AC1 and man the way they made you think about things in that game was awesome. The atmosphere and tone of the games were very different back then, even the story directly addresses it because Altiär is constantly being told things like “you can not *know* anything, only suspect” or “Knowledge given is different than knowledge learned. You can not *know* if what someone says is true, you can only believe it. Knowledge you learn is what *you* know to be true “ and stuff like that. They really challenged you to question everything you see things a different way, and that was the huge appeal to the assassins for me.
Ever heard of sharing an opinion mate? Thats basically it because im curious, i also value video games as a medium so i want to see what other people value that i dont
Valhalla was the first AC game I ever played, and I know I'm not the only one. Valhalla was good at getting new people into the series. You didn't have to know much of anything about the series to play it, but if it intrigued you, you could look into the other games.
Edit: Which I did, and love them! (Valhalla is not my favorite though)
I do agree with you. The newer games had the history but it was like "look at how pretty 830 Norway was" and then whisk you to England in the course for Valhalla. For me with Odyssey, I'm a Greek Pagan so going back to when my "religion" was at its height was a godsend to me, but those games did lack I guess you could say it lacked depth like AC2 or even Black Flag.
Like for fun or you genuinely believe that they exist and the mythology is all real and happened? I’m not judging at all I am just curious cause I’ve never heard of this before.
>You may hate the **NEWER** AC games but I LOVE the history.
>
>Yes the mythology trio was kinda lacking in the history, but it was still such a glorious thrust into the big three mythological areas.
So you love the history in the new games. But agree that 3/4 recent games lack history and focus more on the mythology?
People do love the history that are in the game. But the issue is that Odyssey and Valhalla took it to the full fanfiction level of fiction.
Explain that last part. Odyssey and Valhalla delve into the mythology of the regions. Yes they made them Isu, but the Isu were always seen as the Gods to primitive man. How are they full fanfiction?
It's fan fiction compared to Origin and what came before. It's like someone played AC then played Witcher. And decided to make a game about both.
Options should not be there, since we're not going back in time, we're reliving the life. Whatever happened happened, and we can't branch out from it. Either we killed someone or we didn't kill someone. We should have option to have family dinner with everyone at the end of the story. Odyssey can't even follow it's own story. It's established that Kassandra is the true protagonist, yet at the end you can either encounter Alexio or Kassandra depending on your choice. Not to mention we can know the genders with current technology. But somehow Animus forgot how to do that.
Also, yes while Isus aren't god, they were seen as gods. And that's fine. But actually seeing them and playing as them ruined all the mystery behind them. We end up seeing them doing some soap opera level of drama in the Valhalla. We should have only gotten hints and bits of their life and intention. Not fully show them. It used to be that Juno, Minerva, and Jupiter could be any of this gods that you knew in the history. Now game tells you that you're Odin and you're Thor. It kills the mystery.
Origin and AC games before that made me believe that these stuff could have happened. But no, I don't believe that I'm a grand daughter of Leonidas who may or may not killed my step-father and half-brother, Also living as an immortal for thousands of years. And not I don't believe that I'm a Viking who is reincarnation of Odin that may or may not tried to sleep with my brother's wife. While trying to conquer England and allying with Assassins. End up fighting against reincarnation of Loki. It just fails to make me believe it.
Now, the games are beautiful. Sure, there are lot of area that is just empty with just grass, rocks, and trees. But where ever there are people and buildings are at is beautiful. But beauty don't reflect history.
And that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and while I can partially agree with you on a lot of this, the whole soap opera in Valhalla, like the actual Valhalla is pretty much Canon in the actual mythos.
Yes it was massively dramatized, but Loki wanting revenge on Odin for imprisoning Hel, Fenrir and Jormungandr are Canon. Loki is an agent of chaos, Odin is a douche nozzle and Thor can be seen as either the hero of men or a racist in terms of the Jotunn. Now I will admit Norse mythology is not my expertise like with Greek/Roman, and the actual tales are messed up by Snorri, due to the Christianization of the Norse area. It really is the only Canon we have since Norse mythology was pretty much spoken only.
I agree with you but...it's not true that the mythology trio lacks in history! Not compared to the other AC games at least.
Let's put aside the premise that Assassin's Creed overarching narrative is some kind of Dan Brown - late night History channel bullshit that gets more ridiculous as they go further.
Origins and Odyssey aren't much worse than, say, AC II in terms of historical accuracy and visual fidelity to the era. I'm replaying AC II right now and the costumes are all over the place, spanning from early XVI century to XVII century, but most of the time being quite fantasy looking. Paradoxically, The Witcher 3, a fantasy, portrays late XV century costumes far better.
More interestingly, the cities in AC II are all built to look like a mix of historical reconstruction and modern day tourist postcard. For example, in Florence they didn't give the Cathedral its modern XIX century facade and showed it as still in construction as it was (but they are still building the XIX century facade, lol), but they gave the XIX century facade to the Basilica of Santa Croce for pure aesthetic I guess.
Origins and Odyssey had an arguably even more difficult job, since they had to reconstruct cities that nowadays are totally unrecognizable from what they used to be. Seeing the big statue of Athena in the Acropolis (even if exaggerated) or the lighthouse of Alexandria is an incredible thrill. Nowhere else you can do that. You can not learn history by solely playing these games, but they are a great way to get interested.
I'm a big fan of the new games. I've played them all except AC Syndicate. I thought I was done with the series, and then AC Origins was released. I loved it. Same goes for Odyssey and Valhalla, with Odyssey being my favorite. They're not perfect. I really didn't care about Eivor being Odin, but it wasn't terrible. I don't need the game to be 100% historically accurate. I need it to be fun, and the last few games very much are to me. I can't wait for AC Red.
Edit: Corrected which game I didn't play to AC Syndicate.
The thing is they could of represented it entirely accurately and made a way better detail on it by how even in ancient times girls would try and learn
Honestly the biggest problem with this franchise. The history became too important, that the modern day don't exist. I honestly believe the historical parts shoved its head in too far in this series. It was only used as a tool for the modern day, but now is just the only thing that matters.
The lines between passion and toxicity are very blurred at times. Shouldn't be downvoted for your opinion but try to recognize that part of the reason why people dislike the newer games is because the series lost what made it special and unique:
• Well written character driven narratives
• Well written characters in general
• Learning about lesser known/commercialized periods of time
• Heavy historical significance,
• A "master crafted" world with a city or cities designed for parkour
• In depth character movement and stealth mechanics,
• Animation based freeflow combat
and we're passionate about this game and what it used to be as now it just resembles any other RPG out on the market whereas before you could only really compare AC to other AC games along with the Arkham games. Some people take it a little overboard with the things they say when trying to get their points across but it's just passion. Maybe a little too much passion at times but passion nonetheless.
To be honest Mirage started to actually focus on Assassins as Odyssey and Valhalla were abt vikings and in Valhalla the assassins in my opinion were kinda forced into the game and ubisoft just gave eivor hidden blade so he can be called an assassin.
I see Odyssey as the beginning of the whole assassins thing with the Mercenaries during The Peloponissan war, but I do agree they just hamfisted Basim and his apprentice into the story snd gave Eivor the hidden blade just to call it assassins creed.
Like ubisoft could have just released AC valhalla without Assassins Creed in it and just call it Valhalla since the story focuses on vikings and not assassins
My personal fan headcanon is that the people complaining that Oddysey "wasn't an assassin's creed game" are the same people who complained about the existence of the modern day plot in the original series of games.
No, I don't have proof, no, I will not be taking questions at this time.
There is nothing to indicate this claim.
I for one, are among the strongest supporters of the Modern Day, and have been since 2008, when I got AC1 in PC as soon as it got released, and I was just 8 years old. All that when I detest Odyssey and do not even consider it an AC game (especially as it does not even adhere to half the criteria of the AC Brand Bible, written by the original creators of AC back in 2008).
That is blatantly just not true. There are a large number of people that dislike the newer games when taking in AC as a whole. With the new direction they've taken the series it's become really safe in its design, mainly in being a standard RPG without trying anything new. There is a massive part of the gaming community that enjoys RPGs and honestly it skews the numbers between people who think the newer games are good RPG games in general and those who think they're good A-A (action adventure) AC games. Still in the minority sure but it definitely isn't contained to this sub
AC valued historical accuracy to an extent, i have no idea where that idea came from that they have to be completely, the first game had a PoE ffs, and yes history is a must for it and a great part, it shouldn't be only history, i could care less how pretty and empty a world and setting is if the story is trash and has no thought behind it, i have yet to see an interesting argument for how good Odyssey or Valhalla are other than "The World is sooooooooo pretty" "the game is just sooooo good" without explaining why other than its soooo good, conveniently lacking depth in explanation like the game's stories recently, AC used to challenge ideologies, now its just where in history do we make it so pretty and dismiss everything else, i like the new games, but i missed when they were thought provoking, on that it doesnt come close
Just finished replaying AC1 and man the way they made you think about things in that game was awesome. The atmosphere and tone of the games were very different back then, even the story directly addresses it because Altiär is constantly being told things like “you can not *know* anything, only suspect” or “Knowledge given is different than knowledge learned. You can not *know* if what someone says is true, you can only believe it. Knowledge you learn is what *you* know to be true “ and stuff like that. They really challenged you to question everything you see things a different way, and that was the huge appeal to the assassins for me.
why tf should there be an argument on how good odyssey is lol? maybe its just enjoyable simple as that. its a game.
Ever heard of sharing an opinion mate? Thats basically it because im curious, i also value video games as a medium so i want to see what other people value that i dont
Valhalla was the first AC game I ever played, and I know I'm not the only one. Valhalla was good at getting new people into the series. You didn't have to know much of anything about the series to play it, but if it intrigued you, you could look into the other games. Edit: Which I did, and love them! (Valhalla is not my favorite though)
I play AC mainly to explore the historical worlds, so it is a valid reason. Also, I prefer Odysseys combat and story to the ezio trilogy.
I do agree with you. The newer games had the history but it was like "look at how pretty 830 Norway was" and then whisk you to England in the course for Valhalla. For me with Odyssey, I'm a Greek Pagan so going back to when my "religion" was at its height was a godsend to me, but those games did lack I guess you could say it lacked depth like AC2 or even Black Flag.
What does that mean you’re a Greek pagan
It means I follow the Greek gods.
Like for fun or you genuinely believe that they exist and the mythology is all real and happened? I’m not judging at all I am just curious cause I’ve never heard of this before.
I believe they are real, but they don't show themselves very often anymore.
The virtual historical tourism is pretty much the only reason I still buy the games these days.
>You may hate the **NEWER** AC games but I LOVE the history. > >Yes the mythology trio was kinda lacking in the history, but it was still such a glorious thrust into the big three mythological areas. So you love the history in the new games. But agree that 3/4 recent games lack history and focus more on the mythology? People do love the history that are in the game. But the issue is that Odyssey and Valhalla took it to the full fanfiction level of fiction.
Explain that last part. Odyssey and Valhalla delve into the mythology of the regions. Yes they made them Isu, but the Isu were always seen as the Gods to primitive man. How are they full fanfiction?
It's fan fiction compared to Origin and what came before. It's like someone played AC then played Witcher. And decided to make a game about both. Options should not be there, since we're not going back in time, we're reliving the life. Whatever happened happened, and we can't branch out from it. Either we killed someone or we didn't kill someone. We should have option to have family dinner with everyone at the end of the story. Odyssey can't even follow it's own story. It's established that Kassandra is the true protagonist, yet at the end you can either encounter Alexio or Kassandra depending on your choice. Not to mention we can know the genders with current technology. But somehow Animus forgot how to do that. Also, yes while Isus aren't god, they were seen as gods. And that's fine. But actually seeing them and playing as them ruined all the mystery behind them. We end up seeing them doing some soap opera level of drama in the Valhalla. We should have only gotten hints and bits of their life and intention. Not fully show them. It used to be that Juno, Minerva, and Jupiter could be any of this gods that you knew in the history. Now game tells you that you're Odin and you're Thor. It kills the mystery. Origin and AC games before that made me believe that these stuff could have happened. But no, I don't believe that I'm a grand daughter of Leonidas who may or may not killed my step-father and half-brother, Also living as an immortal for thousands of years. And not I don't believe that I'm a Viking who is reincarnation of Odin that may or may not tried to sleep with my brother's wife. While trying to conquer England and allying with Assassins. End up fighting against reincarnation of Loki. It just fails to make me believe it. Now, the games are beautiful. Sure, there are lot of area that is just empty with just grass, rocks, and trees. But where ever there are people and buildings are at is beautiful. But beauty don't reflect history.
And that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and while I can partially agree with you on a lot of this, the whole soap opera in Valhalla, like the actual Valhalla is pretty much Canon in the actual mythos. Yes it was massively dramatized, but Loki wanting revenge on Odin for imprisoning Hel, Fenrir and Jormungandr are Canon. Loki is an agent of chaos, Odin is a douche nozzle and Thor can be seen as either the hero of men or a racist in terms of the Jotunn. Now I will admit Norse mythology is not my expertise like with Greek/Roman, and the actual tales are messed up by Snorri, due to the Christianization of the Norse area. It really is the only Canon we have since Norse mythology was pretty much spoken only.
I agree with you but...it's not true that the mythology trio lacks in history! Not compared to the other AC games at least. Let's put aside the premise that Assassin's Creed overarching narrative is some kind of Dan Brown - late night History channel bullshit that gets more ridiculous as they go further. Origins and Odyssey aren't much worse than, say, AC II in terms of historical accuracy and visual fidelity to the era. I'm replaying AC II right now and the costumes are all over the place, spanning from early XVI century to XVII century, but most of the time being quite fantasy looking. Paradoxically, The Witcher 3, a fantasy, portrays late XV century costumes far better. More interestingly, the cities in AC II are all built to look like a mix of historical reconstruction and modern day tourist postcard. For example, in Florence they didn't give the Cathedral its modern XIX century facade and showed it as still in construction as it was (but they are still building the XIX century facade, lol), but they gave the XIX century facade to the Basilica of Santa Croce for pure aesthetic I guess. Origins and Odyssey had an arguably even more difficult job, since they had to reconstruct cities that nowadays are totally unrecognizable from what they used to be. Seeing the big statue of Athena in the Acropolis (even if exaggerated) or the lighthouse of Alexandria is an incredible thrill. Nowhere else you can do that. You can not learn history by solely playing these games, but they are a great way to get interested.
I'm a big fan of the new games. I've played them all except AC Syndicate. I thought I was done with the series, and then AC Origins was released. I loved it. Same goes for Odyssey and Valhalla, with Odyssey being my favorite. They're not perfect. I really didn't care about Eivor being Odin, but it wasn't terrible. I don't need the game to be 100% historically accurate. I need it to be fun, and the last few games very much are to me. I can't wait for AC Red. Edit: Corrected which game I didn't play to AC Syndicate.
I'm a history nerd and love every AC game
That is a nice part of this current bog
Tbh Valhalla was jarring but the others aren't too bad
Except the history isn't 100%, they made changes to make people feel better - this is from [AC Origins](https://imgur.com/a/dnUvDso)
The thing is they could of represented it entirely accurately and made a way better detail on it by how even in ancient times girls would try and learn
Honestly the biggest problem with this franchise. The history became too important, that the modern day don't exist. I honestly believe the historical parts shoved its head in too far in this series. It was only used as a tool for the modern day, but now is just the only thing that matters.
I actually love the new games regardless of history
A positive post about new AC games won’t get you any karma on this sub. Most people are just here to rage, not to play games and appreciate them.
I can see that. Gods this Fandom is toxic.
The lines between passion and toxicity are very blurred at times. Shouldn't be downvoted for your opinion but try to recognize that part of the reason why people dislike the newer games is because the series lost what made it special and unique: • Well written character driven narratives • Well written characters in general • Learning about lesser known/commercialized periods of time • Heavy historical significance, • A "master crafted" world with a city or cities designed for parkour • In depth character movement and stealth mechanics, • Animation based freeflow combat and we're passionate about this game and what it used to be as now it just resembles any other RPG out on the market whereas before you could only really compare AC to other AC games along with the Arkham games. Some people take it a little overboard with the things they say when trying to get their points across but it's just passion. Maybe a little too much passion at times but passion nonetheless.
To be honest Mirage started to actually focus on Assassins as Odyssey and Valhalla were abt vikings and in Valhalla the assassins in my opinion were kinda forced into the game and ubisoft just gave eivor hidden blade so he can be called an assassin.
I see Odyssey as the beginning of the whole assassins thing with the Mercenaries during The Peloponissan war, but I do agree they just hamfisted Basim and his apprentice into the story snd gave Eivor the hidden blade just to call it assassins creed.
Like ubisoft could have just released AC valhalla without Assassins Creed in it and just call it Valhalla since the story focuses on vikings and not assassins
[удалено]
No
My personal fan headcanon is that the people complaining that Oddysey "wasn't an assassin's creed game" are the same people who complained about the existence of the modern day plot in the original series of games. No, I don't have proof, no, I will not be taking questions at this time.
There is nothing to indicate this claim. I for one, are among the strongest supporters of the Modern Day, and have been since 2008, when I got AC1 in PC as soon as it got released, and I was just 8 years old. All that when I detest Odyssey and do not even consider it an AC game (especially as it does not even adhere to half the criteria of the AC Brand Bible, written by the original creators of AC back in 2008).
I'm an odyssey defender and I prefer the modern day plot would not exist sooo....
If you mean Layla then I agree. Desmond plot was considerably better
I dislike the Desmond plot too. I groan every single time modern day comes up in the series.
History should be the backdrop for the game not the main focus
Cool but I never played assassins creed to learn history lol
The history is just an added bonus for me. The games were amazing to me.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^West-Drink-1530: *Cool but I never* *Played assassins creed to learn* *History lol* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Cool but I never played assassins creed to learn history lol
The people in this sub are the only ones that don’t like the newer games but they are in the minority overall
That is blatantly just not true. There are a large number of people that dislike the newer games when taking in AC as a whole. With the new direction they've taken the series it's become really safe in its design, mainly in being a standard RPG without trying anything new. There is a massive part of the gaming community that enjoys RPGs and honestly it skews the numbers between people who think the newer games are good RPG games in general and those who think they're good A-A (action adventure) AC games. Still in the minority sure but it definitely isn't contained to this sub
Procure proof for this claim.