Yeah I’m still weirded out by it preceding the origin of the Assassins. I’ll wait until I hear (much) more about it. Syndicate 2 where are you?
Though I do worry: Ancient Greek combat was a matter of phalanx. Spartan mastery of Greece was strength though Phalanx and hoplite. Armor and organization and control: This is what beat the Persians.
So AC: Odyssey is about a solo warrior?
(and yes I know my ancient greek warfare)
To me, I find Greece much more interesting than Egypt (dislike deserts in general), Kassandra seems much more likeable than Bayek and the added RPG aspects of increased player agency - interactive dialogue, choices and consequences - make a huge difference fo me. Plus I didn’t read great things about Origins quest design, but in Odyssey that aspect could also be more promising.
Then count me in! I’m flexible.
Well, that’s a matter of some dispute. And I say that as someone who’s done his PhD in Greek warfare (turned into a book) and has written extensively on the subject. For example, here’s an article based on a lecture I once gave at a Belgian university about the historical importance (or not) of the Battle of Marathon (490 BC) and this features a download link to one of my peer-reviewed articles on the connection between “hoplites” and horsemen.
To get some idea of the complexities involved (and excuse the plug), we did a podcast about hoplites not too long ago that gives a decent overview. There’s plenty more stuff about this on the Ancient World Magazine website (which I edit and write for). Most of the people involved come from an ancient warfare background, so if you’re interested in the topic, it might be worth checking out.
As regards Odyssey – I’m obviously interested in it, but I don’t think I want to pay what Ubisoft is asking, so I might not be able to check it out for a while. If I do, I’m sort of tempted to do a let’s play, just to comment on the historical aspects of the game.
It is about a solo warrior but there are large conquest battles with dozens of soldiers fighting in movie style combats, no massed phalanxes. A game has to be fun and I’m not certain how being one guy in s massed phalanx would be fun.
Both of you make excellent points. Thanks for the sources Josh! Of course Homer talks a lot about single combat between heroes, my view of the game scenes so far make it look a lot later in time than that era.
But yes Grifman, I doubt spending an hour as part of a phalanx pushing back and forth against each other. Heck it appears the main character doesn’t even use a shield!
I am still in day one. Can’t help myself on this one!
ps thx for that great podcast link Josh!
One of the few things RYSE Son of Rome did well was the pre-scripted sequences where your main character ordered a Testudo formation, to break through certain areas. I actually liked them.
Yeah, the first time you did that in Ryse, that’s when I finally sat up and said wow, this game is something else. It’s a flawed game, yes, but man, I still kind of love it. It really made me feel patriotic as a Roman soldier. I’m Roman goddamn it, and they should fear me despite their bigger numbers.
Heh. This post reminded me of a course series I took on Rome back in the 80s as an undergrad. The prof was dramatic, liked almost physically re-enacting battles in front of the class, waving his arms around while speaking. He said one time that the Romans were like pitbulls. You might outnumber them, you might on occasion beat them, but once they bit down they wouldn’t let go and would wear their enemies down over time if they had to.
We can only hope the next game jumps forward to ROME then. :D
I know @tomchick for one will love that.
My money’s on China next, if not Japan. I’d love to see that. Rome would be good, but we’ve been in the west forever.
The History of Rome podcast references that repeatedly as well. Says that essentially the Romans lost just like other tribes and states did, but the difference is that the Romans just kept raising armies, kept coming back for more.
Rome, the Rocky Balboa of the ancient world.
Yeah, just ask Hannibal.
That’s the most interesting thing of all.
Rome the city-state loses 80,000 to Hannibal. Eh, whatever.
Rome the empire loses 40,000 to the Goths in 376. It’s the end of the world.
It’s the difference between a civic army along Greco-Mediterranean models (an army based on civic duty, and funded and supplied at the soldier’s own expense), and an Imperial army (paid a large salary, equipped and supplied by the state). It’s why feudalism was such a potent force in the middle ages, why William was able to raise as many men in Normandy as Harold could raise in all of England.
Have we affirmed what era AC: Odyssey is even in? I haven’t checked with the website, 430 bc maybe or around there? It has to be post-Persian and pre-alexander.
Btw Josh podcast and his research is truly excellent (see above).
I can see doing a roman thing if it was isolated to a certain place (say, britainia or gaul) and time (ceasars gaul etc) but what they are planning on doing with this game is sorta a “whole greek world at the time” thing, Success or failure it is ambitious.
Just checked and yes – 431-404 bc. Peloponnesian war. Maybe that was obvious to you all but I didn’t know till I looked.
Anyone shopping for bargains, don’t forget you can use 100 ‘Ubi Coins’ to get a 20% discount on Uplay.
Brings the price down to around what Greenman is charging.
William’s army included a lot of non-Norman’s as he put out a call for troops, promising riches and plunder. He had large groups from Flanders and Brittany for example. And Harold put out a call for the fyrd in the south of England but did not wait for all of his troops to assemble. He also left a large number of troops in the north where he had just defeated the Vikings.
You sure that works on pre-orders? Uplay has never let it work.
Yeah, I just tried on their store and it told me to screw off.
I don’t think it works on pre-orders in the USA. :|
I recall a reddit post where people discussed it.