Assassin's Creed Odyssey - It's time to Greek out

Maybe the flavour dialogue is a tiny little bit different from time to time, but there are like 5 types of quests in the game repeated ad nauseam and playing the DLCs now, I gotta say I am pretty fucking fed up with being a fed ex girl and hitgirl for everyone. First DLC was utterly dreadful, now I am playing the second (Atlantis), whole new location, beautiful, and what is the first quest I get?

GO CLEAR A FORT

Gee thanks, that’s something new I haven’t been doing for the past 120 hours! So creative!

Ubi need to take design and writing lessons from CD Projekt, Warhorse and Rockstar.

Ok, I can’t. I spent lot of time today forcing myself to play the Atlantis DLC (episode one), and just when I thought it would finally end, I get this quest

I can only take so much Ubisoft completely disrespecting my time and taste. Fuck 'em. Uninstalled.

I think that Ubi’s open-world games are just not really your cup of tea. They take a very different philosophy from the games you cite as paragons of quest design. Ubi games are basically about the world and the combat; quests, story, and all that serve mostly to get you roaming and fighting with a modicum of structure. Games like Kingdom Come are far more focused on narrative impact, and on detailed, RPG-like, interactions with the world and its people. Both approaches are fine, but they are very different.

Why would Ubi put the tremendous time and effort into hand-crafting a ton of side missions/quests when for most of the player base it wouldn’t matter? There’s a reason why Odyssey, that last two Ghost Recons, the Far Crys, etc. keep to the formula they have. It works for the player base. The combat is the focus, so having a fort/checkpoint/base that you have to capture/infiltrate/destroy, with a bit of variety in enemies and layouts and loot, is perfectly fine. At least, it keeps me happy, as I like the combo of mild variability and dependable familiarity the games dish out.

For a game like Kingdom Come, or The Witcher, this approach would not be appropriate. I’d argue those games’ approach would not really work for Ubi’s open-world games, either. Different dynamics totally.

Yet he has infinite faith in Star Citizen. Boggles the mind.

Hi everybody! I only just started playing this, so I’ll skip the previous 1,676 posts-worth of discussion and paste what I put in the immersion thread:

There are plenty of things I don’t like about it, or at least am tired with. Fortunately a lot of those I can skip or skim; it’s been an exercise in focus for me not to get bogged down in the boring parts, but it is overall working out quite well.

You know, I had the almost exact reaction. I’ve been liberating humans for 5-10 hours only to be told to do it again because the quest isn’t aware of my previous actions. Fuck them.

Then sunk-cost fallacy sunk in and I finished it anyway.

Yes, the dreaded Sunk Cost fallacy. I really, really hated uninstalling it, after I spent 120 hours in the game. I wanted to see the conclusion. But the idea of spending another 20-30 hours doing the same cookie cutter borefest killed my will to live. I had to cut the cord for the sake of my mental health.

I am hyperboling…slightly.

I’ll just watch the cutscenes on youtube.

No offense meant, but I dislike this kind of alibism. “If you dislike something that’s because it’s not for you.”.
I love open world RPGs and I have been playing AssCreed since 2007. I am a fan. But even I can only take so much unmemorable, cookie cutter bullshit.

You say that “it works for their playerbase, so why change it?” And…yeah, sure. It works, I guess. But there is a reason why no Ass Creed game since AC2 won many GOTY awards and just in general aren’t as celebrated as their competitors. It is because of how uninteresting the missions and writing is in these games. Hell, I would guess 90% of quests in Odyssey wouldn’t even get greenlit for production at CDP, because of how basic and unmemorable they are. The peak of creativity in Atlantis DLC, from what I played, was poisoning a wine at a party. That was pretty cool, but it drowns in the sea of fedexing and hitwomaning.

And that’s not to say Witcher 3 is perfect (it has overreliance on the witcher sense crutch) or that RDR2 is (its main mission design is restricted to a T and features excessive amount of fail states). But at least they are memorable and interesting to do. I do not feel like these games waste my time. The experience of playing them feels meaningful.

This is unfair of you. I do not have “infinite faith” in Star Citizen. I just appreciate its technical and artistic achievements and hope it gets finished, eventually. If it doesn’t, shame. I put zero cents into it so it’s no skin off my back. And people who back it, I suspect most of them realize it is uncertain donation.

I know!! I was a bit “wait a sec, this is a bit off how can it be autumn here and spring over there” but ultimately I’m thankful for it since it gives diversity to a huge game.

It might be a little bit my own fault, since when I played Origins, I really went all in to finish ENTIRE regions before moving on. The story kind of disappears then, since it’s so long between actual story plots and just kill&retreive-missions. In Odyssey, I’ve tried to rather follow the ebb and flow of the game and the regions the story brings me to, and pick upp missions in that area without getting too hung up on finishing everything (still, I get stuck in regions sometimes because I enjoy the area and quests there without getting tired of it so…).

I know, and I’ll definitely be more annoyed with this as time goes by. But I’m still enjoying it somewhy, maybe because I learned my lesson from Origins and have been more careful with how I play the game so as not to get to bored with repetative missions.

I definitely think they should be more restrictive on forts and such when making a game this large. Plus you could trigger quests that involves that particular fort (or make you unable to go there yet) if you stumble upon it before the given quest.
On that note - they’ve actually made this a bit better already. I’ve cleared ut a few forts and picked up quests afterwards that have involved picking up something at that fort, but by then I already have that in my inventory and don’t have to go back (i.e. tools for some family business, a poison, an antidote…).

Let’s just have our fingers crossed that they keep fixing what turns us off in huge games like these (since they already fixed a lot of them from Origins), cause all in all, it’s a really good game.

What worries me a little is the rumors about them making a Viking AC next.
I can really see how they would design it, like seriously, up to every little detail. It would be so easy for them to just take the mould they have and tweak it and change it a bit without having to do too much.

Blue/greyish hueues, like really sad, cold and harsh (read: depressing). Dirty, muddy, rainy, cold. Stone forts freaking EVERYWHERE (sorry @Paul_cze that won’t get better), dogs running around, wooden huts with clay roofs, stone and iron pots everywhere, just not as colorful as in Greece.
Ship battles. Oh my god there will be SO. MANY. Ship battles.
You’ll probably have a STONE FREAKING FORT as a base in addition to your ship, maybe upgradable.
You’ll be rescuing lots of people from dungeons in stone forts.
There will be lots of snowy mountains. Probably a lot of sick people. There will be a lots of beer drinking and probably som Asgardian gods to kill.
You can all picture what the armors will look like.

I know a lot of people would love and WANT this Viking setting, but I’m just… I don’t know. Even though it would be fun to have an awesome game in Scandinavia (since I live here), I’m just bored just with the thought of this game, since I feel it’s so predictable.

I will personally print this message and eat the paper if they make an assassins creed viking-game that takes me by surprise =)

I got to roughly the same point as Paul in the first Atlantis expansion before setting it down. I’d done pretty much everything in the base game except for a couple of minor side quests - happiest family ending, all cult members dealt with, and all mythical creatures defeated - and also did the Legacy of the First Blade expansions, of which I appear to be the sole fan. I think I was well over 200hrs at that point, and I physically couldn’t play any more. I really loved Odyssey, but it is proof you can have too much of a good thing. I now have zero appetite for playing any more Assassin’s Creed until the next game releases.

You shouldn’t just look at the last ACs to see what’s next - Far Cry and Ghost Recon will probably donate some elements. Looter-Stabber incoming!

That only worries me more.

It is funny that after attempting to diversify the games as a result of the Ubigame meme, they do now seem to be reverting to type again.

None taken, though I disagree with you. It’s not, to me, an alibi, it is simply me stating that I actually prefer this type of open world game, as long as the combat systems are good, to a more narrative-driven, quest-driven system with detailed or meaningful interactions. I don’t want meaning in these types of games, I want action exploration, and loot. I fully admit that most of these games are not GOTY material, from a critical POV. No argument there. But these are games I will pay for, while I never got beyond the first hour in The Witcher 3 (largely due to the PC combat, which I suck at).

Thanks for the idea of watching Youtube to find out how the Fate of Atlantis DLC ends. I just could not play the game any more. Atlantis is such a boring place.

I enjoyed the game for most of it, but it could be half as long and I wasn’t doing all of the many side quests and daily/weekly quests.

I completed that quest! But didn’t make it much further afterward. Elysium sucks.

Yeah, I gave up after ~20 hours or so in Elysium. The prior 100 or so hours were pretty fun, though.

I am not sure why you are acting as if it was either/or.
Good writing and varied, memorable quest design does not preclude having good combat/stealth systems (though I would argue AC games aren’t great there either) or action exploration or conquerable bases and detailed loot systems.

I do, in fact, think it is something of an either/or situation, for two reasons (again, just my thoughts, and certainly not any sort of cosmic law). One reason is philosophical. We’re talking about two very different types of games. One is built around systems, and repeated activities that are common in their essential structure, with just enough variation to offer some different contexts in which those systems can operate. There is narrative, yes, but it’s more the narrative that grows from the repetition of the same actions within different contexts (location, gear, enemies, etc.) rather than from actual story lines. The other is built around stories, for which the systems serve as mechanics through which players can advance the narrative. Narrative here is built explicitly as story telling of the more classical sort, and while systems can be quite important to the overall experience, they are not central to it. In the former, you can take away the story line entirely and still have a game; in the latter, one could argue, you could take away the systems/mechanics and still have a strong narrative (though I’m overstating it a bit here probably). An example of the first type of game is Diablo III. The narrative is utterly inconsequential to the narrative of character development, which is accomplished via repetition of combat in differing arenas with differing foes and differing gear sets, but all within a fairly narrow band of variation. An example of the latter would be something like Kingdom Come: Deliverance, at least in my opinion. There, you experience a story centered on your character, where the game mechanics get their meaning from how they define your character, not from their intrinsic fun. The story is essentially fixed, in the macro sense, and you are creating your own place in that narrative. If you were just grinding stuff and fighting hordes of faceless opponents to get more loot, it would simply not fit. Likewise, in a game like Diablo 3, having a bunch of really detailed and hand-crafted quests would probably just make most players cranky, as the point is to fight hordes of faceless enemies.

The second reason I think you can argue that it is an either/or situation is practicality. The sheer volume of stuff you need for a game intended to be played ad nauseum, repeating the same basic actions again and again in a kill-loot-level cycle, I think generally precludes doing anything other than cookie cutter repetition. It can be done well, or not so well, but when the point of the game is huge amounts of stuff to kill and loot, again and again, there’s a hard limit to how much you can hand craft things. There’s always going to be a trade-off between volume of content and the degree to which that content is closely directed and crafted. To create custom, thoughtful content for a game where that content is ground through at prodigious rates seems unrealistic.

But again, just my thoughts. I like both types of games for different reasons. I just don’t see a need to have both archetypes squeezed into a single game.

That’s a good point. The combat in Kingdom Come is kind of fun in a Mount and Blade sort of way - but it suffers from the same awkwardness of swing timing, strange hit boxes (it’s actually very hard for me to see distance KC combat when it’s a matter of inches) and honestly a huge amount of old school grind that sort of wants you to spend hours of real time training.

For someone who lives in Scandinavia, your view of the Vikings is rather limited :). They ranged from Russia (known at the Rus there) to England to France (Normandy) to Constantinople (Varangian Guard), to Iceland and Greenland. I really doubt that the game will be limited to just Scandinavia. I actually suspect that a large part will take place in England during the Viking invasions. There you would have plenty of factions - various Viking groups, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, etc. but this is just a total guess on my part. But there’s no reason a Viking AC has to take place solely in the cold north and just in stone forts (depending upon the time frame, there might not even be many stone forts at all).