Assassin's Creed: Odyssey Review Scores

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
5,703
2,183
1,100
Evening folks,


In a review thread it's likely there will be various scores along the spectrum, and over time it's fully expected these scores will mature and be more representative of spending longer with the game. Ubisoft have gone on record as saying they are intending to make the 'Assassin's Creed' franchise more RPG-like if not full on. It's fair to assume this will draw criticism from those who want the established action formula and those who like the new direction.


For general discussion about the game and mechanics the |OT| is probably a better place, however the review thread will undoubtedly create factions where both sides can point to mainstream/independent reviewers that support their own experiences. However, I ask that you bear in mind your own biases (negative and positive) and don't make this into a 'x' validates my opinion which proves I'm right. It would be more productive to concentrate on why there is such a polarised reception to the game. If Ubisoft do intend to continue down this path, is this indicative of the traditional fans not liking it, are they being given a free pass whereas Bioware were crucified for the 'power' mechanic in Inquisition?


All in all - from this point - on direct personal insults (of which some have come markedly close) will earn thread bans. Having said that by participating in a review thread, it is expected both sides can digest the others arguments and with that in mind, stomach opinions which may run contrary to their experiences.
No one made an OT. We have a lot of different discussions going on in this thread due to that.
 
Nov 22, 2016
739
92
245
Perhaps it is message board sin to post on a thread without reading the entire thread first, but I am a sinner. I shall probably sin again.

My immediate suspicion when I look at how well received was that the big name reviewing sites/mags were receiving some dough from Ubisoft to ensure that they could profit off of at least a couple more Assassin's Creed games. Admittedly, I have not put my hands on origins a single time mostly because of that line of thought. Now I am having to reconsider that opinion since this game is doing even more well than the last.

For those of you who have played a significant amount of Odyssey, are the reviews embellished to hell or has Ubisoft successfully breathed life back into the series?
I'd say the reviews are spot on. Game has strong quests altho as most reviewers noted, none are at the level of a Bloody Baron for example (even tho most of the quests in Witcher 3 are honestly forgettable, strongest point of the game was the light-ish cinematography / presentation, especially in Blood & Wine when they remembered that they actually were capable of doing non generic stories in a Dark fantasy universe)

But what is honestly impressive about Odyssey is how consistent the game is in depicting the world / events and how everything you do actually is absolutely affecting everything you'll be about to do in a near future. This is Witcher 1 level of good and to this day this game was the reference for many role players on pc, because it felt much more organic and consequential than in 2 and 3

Like honestly this is close to Obsidian's stuff. What the game is lacking in order for Ubisoft to improve on this new orientation, is actually having more than two ways to finish a quest, then we'll enter in Planescape / Fallout territory which would be amazing. I really love that you can have up to 4 different kind of consequences regarding the actions you made, now they just need to embrace the "open" a little bit wider

That being said, this would completely change AC's formula to say the last. And more linear games aren't exactly bad to play either

Oh yeah btw ignore the comments about people whacking npcs for 5 mins in order to kill them. That's just them not having the combat figured out yet
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2018
55
40
150
Oh yeah btw ignore the comments about people whacking npcs for 5 mins in order to kill them. That's just them not having the combat figured out yet
Probably also attacking enemies higher level than them which is not a good idea in an RPG game.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2012
591
149
400
www.youtube.com
In order to fully enjoy the combat system it is mandatory to progress in the main quest, I would say that things get better soon after you reach Athens. From that point on it will be possible to collect some fragments that will allow you to improve the character's build. Nothing that relates to equip and perks must be underestimated at high levels of difficulty, engravings and full armor sets are meant to deal much more damage and give further skills which alleviate the attack-button-smashing side of the combat. If you are not dealing much damage it means that these aspects haven't still been taken into consideration. This is my personal experience of course.
 
Last edited:
Mar 19, 2013
528
596
360
Yes I agree no doubt about it, Karak (from ACG) is actually objective, informative and serious in his work.
I've never been a fan of Angry Joe. My experience is that he's more into fanservice than actual reviews. He waits to see what his core fans' general opinions are, then tailors his videos accordingly.

He's a good showman*, but not a good reviewer. He's perfected the art of making money by capitalising on his fans' confirmation bias. I haven't followed him in recent years, but he's never seemed sincere in any of the videos I saw of him.

*To some I guess. I personally get second-hand embarrassment from his videos and especially from the pre-review 'skits'.
 
Last edited:
Nov 22, 2016
739
92
245
I meant 'in general'. In any case I doubt it is easy to handle an enemy let's say 10 level above you on Nightmare difficulty.
one shot, no problems

you can one shot everything when reaching lvl 30 - 32, and thats including lvl 50 stuff on the far right side of the map
 
Last edited:
Jul 9, 2018
1,256
1,796
295
In order to fully enjoy the combat system it is mandatory to progress in the main quest, I would say that things get better soon after you reach Athens.
Hahahaha. How many hours of a game do you need to play until it gets good? Any game should show what it is worth in the first hour.

"Just play it for 20 hours! It gets good after hour 20."
 
Jan 18, 2018
231
126
190
Two Points:
1. Microtransactions in paid games need to stop, period.
2. the first 4 or what hours (did the first "off-shore"-mission) I played now of Odyssey were fun and every little golden exclamation point on the map had a somewhat interesting mission behind it.

Disclaimer: I (my partner) won the PS4 version on a radio-show-call-in-thingy! Didn't pay one Drachme :)
 
Sep 7, 2018
195
130
180
So I got past the initial tutorial island. I have to say the level system really makes this game shit if the combat wasn't bad enough.

I'm just exploring the world as combat bores the shit out of me but the world around it is beautiful. Whats super fuckin lame is I can't do Jack shit. I can't just raid any camp because "sorry you can't wear boots like that until level 19" or "sorry you can't enjoy this battle because all enemies are level 38"

My ship broke in the middle of the sea for some reason and I swam onto another ship thinking, wouldn't it be, you know, *Fun* if I stole it and did some random shit but no, "sorry these enemies are level 20"

Fuck what a boring system. Even in Skyrim with difficult enemies I can still have fun trying to be sneaky and end up with really good gear. It's entertaining. This game presents a giant open world that somehow feels linear because I need to go kill a whole bunch of bores. Holy fuck my last mission was "talking to a guy in a cave about stealing some food", Yay.

Hmmm nop I did not.
In the end you are compaining about the game because you didn't even know what what you were buying.
So, because I bought a game on word of mouth, my opinion of the game being shit is invalid. Is that what you're saying? Because fuck me I have no idea what you are talking about otherwise. That no one can ever review a product having owned it and played it. If they made the purchasing decision without consulting the internet, and comparing it to their past feelings about said product. What a crock of shit, you're grasping at straws mate. I owned two previous creed titles. Seen tons of shit about the series on the net about other titles and just decided to take a punt on this one. The fuck do you care how I spend my money. You're just a derailer. It's a forum. People are not going to echo chamber your shit 24/7 as they won't mine.
 
Last edited:
Feb 16, 2018
246
153
220
Then cite the problems with Angry Joe's review. You didn't even watch it. He makes good points.
I did watch it. And lo and behold, he even likes the game. I just don't take Angry Joe very seriously because he has this schtick where the production values are sometimes more important than making actually good points. He revels in outrage culture. Heck, his name is Angry Joe for a reason. He sometimes makes good points, but I don't see him on the same level as someone like Karak from ACG who actually reviews the game instead of having 10 minute skits interleaved with some gameplay commentary here and there.

Karak doesn't have to hold up his schtick that got him viewers in the first place. Angry Joe does. His gimmick of being a character gets in the way of him being a professional reviewer. Karak went the professional reviewer route from the get go.
 
Feb 16, 2018
246
153
220
That doesn't mean anything at all. I know YouTubers who play more and better than any "professional reviewer" and I'd trust their opinions over any game journalist any time as long as they agree with me and even then I will make very clear that I cherry pick certain opinions only. Because even about the Angry Joe review I am lying because he liked the game so he isn't even completely in support of my opinion. So I just pick out what I want to hear and have you believe that is the truth.
Fixed that for you buddy!
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2018
613
522
190
@DS_Joost you are looking even more sick than Thiagosc777...

While I don't like much AngryJoe Review, the point he got are valid. It's not about liking it or not, it's about fact and for once Joe didn't go to much fanboy(lol@ Joe movie review)... imo you are the one in the whole denying things actually.

-Joe criticism the micro-transaction and its valid.(micro-transaction have nothing to do in a 60/120$ game, PERIOD.)
-Joe say the game graphics are stunning and its valid.
-Joe say the world map is huge but overwelming because of the lack of proper game design, and it's valid.
-Joe critisim the AI that didn't evolved since a decade and it's a valid point.
-Joe say the quest are mostly fedex/mmo quality and it's valid. (Witcher III comparison)
-Joe then criticism the grind moment that you can feel, when the game oblige you to do low tier and repetitive content to progress, valid. (and no, grind isn't the essense of RPG.)
-Joe critisim the Animus moment and it's valid. (For me it's the worse thing in this serie, and while I understand Ubisoft keep it to "explain" their technical game world limitation and lore to "excuse" invisible walls, no fall damage or death aka synchronisation... It just ruin the immersivity and actually do the total opposite of what they try to achieve.)
-Joe criticism the awkward and writing(romance specialy), while it's Ubisoft first attempt it's still mediocre so his point is valid.
-Joe criticism the lack of consistency in the world, and it's a valid point (even if people are used to play Ubisoft cheesy open world)
etc etc

With all those obvious flaws Joe still give a 7 out of 10 to the game, because despite everything the game is still fun to play and he LIKES it.
I myself wouldn't even play a game with a main menu that look like some appstore, but that just me.
 
Last edited:
Sep 18, 2017
1,743
1,535
260

It's a lengthy watch, but I thought it was well argued. "Fair and balanced", if you will. Yes, some of the common issues people have brought up (like MTs) are discussed as well, but also what works in the game. If anything, watching that made me more interested to try this - I've been quite burned out by the AC franchise (haven't yet bought Origins because of it), but maybe I'll get this off a sale. I reckon by the holiday season (or at the traditional PSN xmas countdown at the very least) there will be good deals.
 
Jul 1, 2009
7,973
509
750
I want this game. How does the microtransaction bullshit affect it, truly? I didn't really mind it in Origins.
As long as you don't mind doing a TON of meaningless sidequests, they can be skipped without affecting gameplay. I'm talking 2001 MMO type quests. There's also one vendor I've found (so far) that only deals in premium in game currency, which can be farmed on timed quests really slowly.

Take that how you will.
 
Oct 15, 2018
26
9
85
As long as you don't mind doing a TON of meaningless sidequests, they can be skipped without affecting gameplay. I'm talking 2001 MMO type quests. There's also one vendor I've found (so far) that only deals in premium in game currency, which can be farmed on timed quests really slowly.

Take that how you will.
I did a lot of side-quests in Origins, and often ended up over-levelled for the story. Is this a similar issue here?
I didn't do the randomly generated ones or whatever. Just the regular white ! mark on NPCs.
 
Jul 1, 2009
7,973
509
750
I did a lot of side-quests in Origins, and often ended up over-levelled for the story. Is this a similar issue here?
I didn't do the randomly generated ones or whatever. Just the regular white ! mark on NPCs.
My take so far has been to do all the "!" quests as well as any of the lesser ones that I happen to be near, but I don't go out of my way to do those, and I've been right with the story. You can't really overlevel anyways, the content scales up with you (though not down).
 
Oct 10, 2018
452
494
185
Fl

It's a lengthy watch, but I thought it was well argued. "Fair and balanced", if you will. Yes, some of the common issues people have brought up (like MTs) are discussed as well, but also what works in the game. If anything, watching that made me more interested to try this - I've been quite burned out by the AC franchise (haven't yet bought Origins because of it), but maybe I'll get this off a sale. I reckon by the holiday season (or at the traditional PSN xmas countdown at the very least) there will be good deals.
Good vid. Thanks, wut.

Ill probably pick this up once it gets patched up a bit and drops til around 25-30 on a Flash sale. Perfect game for those annual Summer droughts.
 
Feb 11, 2015
498
9
280
Canada

It's a lengthy watch, but I thought it was well argued. "Fair and balanced", if you will. Yes, some of the common issues people have brought up (like MTs) are discussed as well, but also what works in the game. If anything, watching that made me more interested to try this - I've been quite burned out by the AC franchise (haven't yet bought Origins because of it), but maybe I'll get this off a sale. I reckon by the holiday season (or at the traditional PSN xmas countdown at the very least) there will be good deals.
Pretty long review so I only watched the first 15 minutes, but it seemed well reasoned and conscious of the various play styles that people enjoy, although it's a bit ironic that he discusses bloat in games and other media in a 47 minute video game review. He raises a point about how bigger isn't necessarily better, which, in general, I'd agree with, but I'd also argue that video games are a unique medium where bigger can be better if the game's systems are not dependent on unique content. For example: multiplayer games where players themselves generate content and stories through their interactions with each other where a bigger world might provide different and more varied contexts for these interactions. Rogue-like games thrive on giving players randomized situations that present the player new and unexpected situations to overcome where a bigger game could mean more unique and varied situations. Basically, any game where you can simply scramble up the map layout, the enemies and their types, and special map features and get a fresh feeling experience is a systems-focused game rather than a content-focused one (such as an adventure game where the main compelling content is new narrative, locations, puzzles, and characters). For a stealth game like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, simply changing up the map layout (eg. vertical elements, bush positions, entry points), where guards patrol and whether they group up, and which enemies are present (eg. elite enemies that you can't easily one-shot, dogs that can detect you even when hidden, the sudden appearances of powerful mercenaries) can lead to a different player experience and tactical approach compared to another map with different patrol paths and enemies. Now, you could just randomize a single room in the game to get these different game play scenarios (or even just have a list of challenge rooms that you teleport into), but it's much more immersive to make these situation variants different locations in a large open world. That's how I see Odyssey's random forts: they are simply locations where the enemies and map elements have been randomized to give me a different opportunity to tinker with the game's systems.

As a game play-first kind of player, I don't care so much for story and memorable characters (which isn't to say that I don't value them at all: games are an even better experience when there are intriguing reasons to progress through them), thus doing these random forts without any kind of quest objective or interesting narrative reason is totally fine for me: overcoming the challenge is the objective in and of itself for my amusement. A story-first kind of player, however, will not be as entertained by these kinds of randomized, "meaningless" experiences. They want to see unique content where the rewards for playing are interesting characters, situations, and plot points. It's impossible for a developer who has finite resources to handcraft every scenario in a 100+ hour game, thus a story-focused game would probably be a better experience if made smaller without as much "padding". This is the kind of game that shouldn't be bigger than it needs to be and probably what this reviewer had in mind. As the opposite kind of player that loves experimenting with game play systems, I've been really liking Ubisoft's recent games, specifically The Division, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, and now Odyssey where the massive worlds and random elements give me reasonably fresh feeling challenges to play around with the game's systems. For me, bigger is better in system-focused games where the systems and the world interact with each other to generate a near endless supply of entertainment.

I want this game. How does the microtransaction bullshit affect it, truly? I didn't really mind it in Origins.
If you didn't mind it in Origins, you won't mind it here because it's pretty much the same other than the presence of the infamous xp and gold boosters. And if you didn't mind doing the side quests in Origins, you will really like Odyssey because the side content and their variety is massively improved such that you will do the unique "main" side quests and won't need the xp boost. For reference, I'm level 28 with 33 hours played and apparently only 26% done the story. The infamous level jump in main quest allegedly takes place between levels 25-31 I think. I will probably be overleveled by the time I hit that part of the story.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
8,193
1,166
595
I finally finished the game and got all the achievements on my One X.

Overall, the game is fantastic and I had a lot of fun at times. I liked that it incorporated a lot of the best moments from previous games. The ship fights very much a Black Flag feel which was something that people missed from Unity, Syndicate and Origins.
Greece was wonderfully rendered. 8/10 for me. Origins was a 9/10. I liked that they more or less kept all the enemies close to your level as that made loot much more meaningful. I didn't get the best ending though and that disappointed me as I felt I did most everything to do that. I loved that the

When I share my thoughts I usually say a lot more about what I didn't like.

What I hated:
1. The bounty hunter system was far more frustrating and annoying than fun/challenging. Most of them were just weapon spammers and I can't count how many times (even on easy) when they could cause me to lose a significant amount of progress all because 2-3 of them would gang up on you and you would lose all your health before you even know what hit you. I suppose you could say that is the game's way of telling you to not get seen, but I felt it was cheap at times.
2. The revised checkpoints. This was a big one for me. AC games prior to Origins have always had a pretty generous save system and you could always count on keeping your progress. Not so with Odyssey. Anytime you entered an area, the auto saves stop and combined with the bounty system, you could end up having to do a lot over again. It was also very very bad when covering long distances on the ship and you might get gang-raped by enemy ships and lose quite a bit of progress.
3. Resource management was a grind. If you had a gear set that you really liked, it was a huge chore plain and simple to go and get resources, especially things like soft leather and obsidian glass on higher levels. If the developers had dropped the resource cost of upgrading by like say half, it would have been 1000X better.
4. The legendary animals especially the boar were just plain TERRIBLE and unfun. I hated these fights like no other. Just not stop attacks that were damn near impossible to avoid.

What I didn't like:
1. Critical assassinations didn't do much for me as they didn't always register and it caused me to end up in a lot of long fight sequences. I get it that they were supposed to be more difficult to pull off, but still it annoyed me in quite a few spots.
2. I missed the different bow types. I can't say how satisfying it was in Origins to predator bow shot someone from a ways.
3. Parrying and dodging didn't always register and lead to a lot of cheap enemy hits.
4. The slowing down of the horse in cities was annoying when you were trying to escape and had enemies after you.
5. Bring back double assassinations please.
6. Greece wasn't near as memorable as Egypt was, as very locations stood out like they did in Egypt. A smaller map would have been better IMO.
 
Last edited:
Apr 21, 2010
2,713
745
280
Wow, I'm surprised at how contentious the thread got.

This is one reason I like playing games long after the release date has passed. I can play a game without having all of this pro vs. con argumentativeness cluttering my thinking. I feel like I can experience the game more directly that way. When I play a game right after it's been released, there is often so much argument and analysis that it's hard to just play the game for what it is, without continually remembering some point someone mentioned on the forum.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to playing the game next year. I am just finishing up another Ubisoft game (Far Cry Primal), so I'm not ready for another Ubi-style open-world full of icons, crafting, and upgrades ... not yet, anyhow.
 
Jul 9, 2018
1,256
1,796
295
This is one reason I like playing games long after the release date has passed. I can play a game without having all of this pro vs. con argumentativeness cluttering my thinking.
That's because of hype culture. Companies play on it, the media pushes it and gamers eat it up. Every AAA game released is "the best game ever" and fanboys are going to defend it to death. After a few months you'll start seeing "Hey, remember that game, it wasn't as good as people said it was...".
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
8,193
1,166
595
Wow, I'm surprised at how contentious the thread got.

This is one reason I like playing games long after the release date has passed. I can play a game without having all of this pro vs. con argumentativeness cluttering my thinking. I feel like I can experience the game more directly that way. When I play a game right after it's been released, there is often so much argument and analysis that it's hard to just play the game for what it is, without continually remembering some point someone mentioned on the forum.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to playing the game next year. I am just finishing up another Ubisoft game (Far Cry Primal), so I'm not ready for another Ubi-style open-world full of icons, crafting, and upgrades ... not yet, anyhow.
Not a bad idea. Plus it may not be a bad idea to wait until all the DLC is available as AC games are hard (for me) to play after Ive done most of the main game and then try to come back to.
 
Likes: Humdinger
Feb 16, 2018
246
153
220
That's because of hype culture. Companies play on it, the media pushes it and gamers eat it up. Every AAA game released is "the best game ever" and fanboys are going to defend it to death. After a few months you'll start seeing "Hey, remember that game, it wasn't as good as people said it was...".
Wow man. Gotta admire your determination to put this game into the ground. Now, if you put the same effort into anything else...

Or are you paid by EA to do this? 😘
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2013
356
203
320
I didn't get the best ending though and that disappointed me as I felt I did most everything to do that.
That was exactly my experience. I even replayed the entire game from the beginning in order to get the good one and I'm pretty sure the cause is a dialogue late in the game (in a certain prison) where your choices are very unclear and even misleading, and any 'bad' one will lock you into the bad ending. There are just about 3 quests after that and the main quest ending, so it may be possible to rewind.

To be honest, both endings are disappointing. The bad one is soul-crushing and the good one feels forced and out of place.

I fully agree with all your other criticisms. Checkpoints in particular have not been mentioned here, but are unreliable, it's easy to lose a chunk of progress unexpectedly. I mean, most of the time they work, at least while you are doing mission stuff (they really like to put them at the wrong end of a cutscene, though) but they are not triggered by any exploration or side stuff, so if you like to just go around doing things on your own, you need to save manually. I often abused that manual save system in any case (for example going slightly out of the bounds of a fort in order to activate it). The save system is also pretty bad, it is some Zelda-esque bullshit where not everything is really saved. For example, after a reload many enemies won't be at their previous positions but can be randomly positioned instead. It's pretty infuriating when you plan your route of attack and count on bodies being out of range of the remaining enemies but then you die, and after you reload the entire enemy distribution is different and your plan is messed up.

The bad part about resource management is upgrading. At level 50 they demand about 2000 leather items to upgrade a single item, for example. Killing a wolf will give you about 10 if you're lucky, and a successful big fort invasion or hunting spree can grant you about 300 or 400, so upgrading an entire early set (something I really wanted to do with the pirate set) is out of the question. Even shops will only have 100-200 in stock and it's not cheap there. I thought I was hoarding resources like crazy during my playthrough and at the end game I could only upgrade two pieces and I was out. Just for reference, the $20 in-app purchase is not enough to upgrade even a single piece. Upgrading a full set has a real money cost of about $140 or so, and upgrading multiple legendary sets (which may make sense to some, since they are good for different situations) would cost several times that. They are seriously after the whales with this.

Closing a cultist line will sometimes silently upgrade your entire legendary armor set to your level, but this is buggy or unreliable, as I closed most of those lines very late in the game and I still had most of those pieces stuck at very early levels. Perhaps they just want you to keep changing your equipment to the new loot you constantly get. I'm not sure about this being the case, though. Epic or legendary equipment includes some extra damage %, so sometimes a old piece is better than all the new stuff you get simply because it improves your damage output (you sacrifice lots or armor, though, and upgrading it gives you an even better %).
 
Sep 13, 2007
18,967
759
975
Brooklyn, NY
Finally finished up the game last night at level 48 with no XP boost. Passed over a LOT of side quests, but I did all the main stuff (Cultists and Creatures). So yeah, the "grind" isn't so bad IMO.

Anyway, I thought it was a great game but a step back from Origins in a lot of ways. First off, the loss of shield makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. I'm a goddamn Spartan warrior, for fuck's sake. I spent the first 10 hours looking forward to the moment I unlocked my shield slot, only for it to be revealed as another melee slot lol.
The loss of shields and the reliance on a wonky dodge mechanic (which was already wonky in Origins) is a bad design decision, as well as enemies having an unlimited supply of Adrenaline so that they could pull an Unblockable out of their ass at any given moment.
Lastly, the Mercenaries system was just stupid and showcases how little the AI in these games has advanced. They literally have psychic powers. It's not upsetting because they were pretty easy to dispatch most of the time (I spec'd to Assassin damage so as long as I got a backstab in, the battle was already won), but it was incredibly silly to see a Mercenary venture deep into a cave system to find me several times during my 70+ hour playthrough.

Edit: Also, Ubi really needs to mandate better story cutscenes and transitions in these games. The cuts to black and loading really take me out of it, especially when it happens during the ending:
Kassandra hands Layla the staff, dies in attempted emotional scene.. cut to black. Layla: "welp, better go back in the Animus because there's so much more to do!" *cuts to loading screen* while leaving Kass' body to rot
Come on, Ubi. You can do better than that.
 
Last edited:
Jul 26, 2018
258
222
215
Finished the game at 80 hours. I felt I blazed through it on Easy, but the game was massive. I finished Origins in less than half the time of this.

I think this was something between a good and a great game. I'd give it a 7. I recommend playing this game on easy. The combat system is not deep enough to justify spending the time with sponge enemies. It's a lot more fun to have that push to be able to run through content and just advance. I'd suggest focusing on unlocking the synchronized fast travel waypoints, and advancing in the main story.


Minor spoilers. Be warned!


Cliff notes:

- Alexios is a great character. Good voice acting, he was well captured, and I liked playing as him. I got the "worst" ending, and I found it befitting of a greek tragedy.

- The quality of the side quests are awesome, but it still cannot touch the worst ones in Witcher 3. I think the format they are borrowing from Witcher really fits AC. The eagle vision works as Witcher senses in finding your target.

- Just like Witcher 3, the loot/item/scaling system is awkward. By the end of the game I had so much legendary gear. It didn't matter you got Thessus Boots, Achillis Spear or Jasons Breastplate. Every level you just got new blue and purple randomized versions of equal gear. While I appreciate the fact that you can get cool legendary gear at any point in the game, legendary gear doesn't feel special as it does in a Diablo game. Witcher 3 has the same problem.

- There are some disappoint and memorable historical figures in the game. On the whole side I wouldn't say that there where anyone who was as memorable as Leonardo Da Vinci in AC2, but some of the famous historical people you meet are great. They were better than many of the ones you met in Unity (like Napoleon, which just felt pointless). The greek war between Sparta and Athens is also better integrated into the story than the french revolution was to Unity.

- I think the game as a whole is bloated, but more sub systems worked better than I imagined. The Sparta/Athenian regional war and conquest battles where unnecessary. I get the idea that you are fighting as a mercenary, but you're slaughtering thousands of soldiers, regional leaders and polmarchs from both sides endlessly. NPCs just know that you are an eagle-bearer and are happy to fight with you even though you have killed batallions of their comrades. Its just stupid. The way you pick sides in the conflict feels schizophrenic and pointless.

- Cultist system was pretty good. I think the delivery mechanic of finding clues around the world was fun. I had fun tracking them all down, but it also felt like it was missing something. Some characters had a subplot with them to discover their identity, others would just be random NPCs I killed that turned out to be cultists. I would have invested less time in making less interesting side quests, and more to develop full fledged interesting character arcs for every cultist. In fact- I'd be fine with no side quests from the likes of Herrodotus, Sokrates, Alkibabes and many of the others. Those weren't memorable. I am fine with them as characters in the game, but the cultists would have been more interesting.

- The ending for the cultist plot and the plot about your father was interesting, but I wish it had more answers. And I didn't found the endings to give all the answers. I loved the supernatural mythical elements. The real world plot with Layla was once again, okay, but I am still not warmed on it. It's a bit disappointing how lame and incapable the the assassins seems.

- The skill system is too limited in playstyle. It undermines the RPG element when you get enough skill points to spec in anything. You have so many skill points you can just spec in a mix of all of them. Kinda like in a Bethesda game, you end up not choosing a role because you are just a god of everything. AC needs more individualized skill trees and paths.

- Overall good game. Build well on Origins. A viking themed AC game in 800-1000 AD next? AC Japan?

- I think Origins and Odyssey have a good format for AC. Its impossible for me to go back to the old games. In that way they have ruined them. I think AC should do what Hitman does and remake all AC titles into a unified episodic segment with some sort of meta assassin/templar element. It would be a chance to remake AC1 and Ezio trilogy, 4, Rogue, Unity and Syndicate and re-do some of the story steps, rework combat, progression, loot, quests and missions to the quality of Origins and Odyssey. They all run on versions of the anvil engine.
It would be cool if they made the remakes as you could play the time periods in different games as new templar characters that explored the complex realities of what the templars are trying to achieve.