Assassin's Creed Series

[Craigsters]

I had to re-install Ubisoft connect to see if I owned Origins and I do, but I like odyssey and valhalla more

[Zello]

Just now, Craigsters said:

I had to re-install Ubisoft connect to see if I owned Origins and I do, but I like odyssey and valhalla more

I'm the opposite. I like Origins but hate Odyssey and Valhalla

[Craigsters]

I liked the  ship combat in odyssey, but didn't play Origins long enough to see if it too had ship battles

[Grichka Bogdanoff]

49 minutes ago, Craigsters said:

I liked the  ship combat in odyssey, but didn't play Origins long enough to see if it too had ship battles

There's ship combat in Origins too

Spoiler

It's part of a major plot point towards the end

and it's done better than the one in Odyssey lol

 

6 hours ago, Zello said:

 Ubisoft should really go and upate all of the older games in the franchise too they all need to get 60 FPS/4k patches.

Would be nice, especially because Syndicate is almost entirely unplayable through bc at the moment and Unity would benefit massively from the 60FPS.

Edited May 21 by Grichka Bogdanoff

[Craigsters]

what is the biggest Unity package you can buy from ubisoft connect?  steam sill's one for over $300 dollars and it has 13 dlc's   or AC game within it's package

Edited May 21 by Craigsters

[Mister Pink]

I was gone off the AC series but jumped back in with Odyssey. I didn't realise Origins had ship battles until I watched a trailer. Origins coming to Game Pass in June. I'm still only level 23 in Odyssey and bought the Atlantis DLC which recommends you be level 40 or over (I think). Going to finish up with that before I take a look at Origins. The games are so big, it's still feels a little grindy but I'm still enjoying it. 

 

I heard great things about Origins. I think I like the Greece setting better as I've visited there a couple of times but seeing ancient Egypt will be dope, as the kids say. 

[Jason]

I tried Origins after Odyssey and it's an odd game to go back to from Odyssey. It's basically Ubi's first stab at the RPG turn the series took and it shows, some may prefer it, mind you, but for me the skill tree and gearing wasn't as enjoyable as Odyssey's.

 

I do think that it's probably Ubi's best map out of the three (Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla) though.

[Mister Pink]

Yeah, I think I'll play it just to see the map and some of the sights. The thought of going into another big AC game after the other is kind of daunting. 

[Jason]

They REALLY need to cut the bloat with the next game, and I have zero reason or confidence to think they will. It's the #1 problem these games have for me.

 

You could slice Valhalla's story in half and still probably put up a decent argument that the story is still bloated, that's how ridiculous it is.

[Grichka Bogdanoff]

4 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

I heard great things about Origins. I think I like the Greece setting better as I've visited there a couple of times but seeing ancient Egypt will be dope, as the kids say. 

I'd say it's pretty much better than both Odyssey in every way minus longevity.

The setting is very subjective, but Origins still does it better than Odyssey, in which every city and enchampment are composed of ctrl c + ctrl v buildings and stuff, in addition to being just plain historically inaccurate

[Creed Bratton]

5 hours ago, Jason said:

I tried Origins after Odyssey and it's an odd game to go back to from Odyssey. It's basically Ubi's first stab at the RPG turn the series took and it shows, some may prefer it, mind you, but for me the skill tree and gearing wasn't as enjoyable as Odyssey's.

 

I do think that it's probably Ubi's best map out of the three (Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla) though.

I liked Origins. The map is the real MVP of that game. Unlike Odyssey, the size of the map made sense. The game was built around the idea of a gigantic map. Odyssey, on the other hand, didn't really have a good reason for such an enormous map, or for such a long story. They just wanted to make a game that's bigger than Origins, without justifying it. I have not played Valhalla and I don't plan to. Several critics whose opinion I value have expressed how bored they were with the game after 20-30h, and apparently the game is even bigger and longer than Odyssey, but with less loot, which is just a mind-boggling design choice. At least with enough loot you could somehow get through Odyssey. Hell, I still haven't played through the Atlantis DLC for Odyssey. That means that I started a playthrough of Odyssey in 2018 and I'm still not done with it.

 

And since this is a general AC topic, allow me to quote myself yet again about something that I still feel very strongly about:

On 1/12/2019 at 6:11 PM, Creed Bratton said:

Jacob is an idiot and Evie is seriously underrated.

Syndicate should have been all about Evie. She's one of the best female characters in video games. And Ubisoft didn't know how to capitalize on that. But Ubisoft is afraid of releasing a game with just a female protagonist. Hell, these days they're afraid of releasing a game with just a male protagonist.

Edited May 22 by Creed Bratton

[Jason]

Yea no disagreements there. I may give Origins another go, I started playing it fairly fresh of finishing Odyssey so maybe a bit of burn out played a part too. The thing I was most excited for in that game I never really did - exploring the map.

 

But yea, Ubi have definitely gone down the the path of quantity > quality. The Witcher 3 had a massive influence on AC and I think Ubi saw TW3's length and went "hmm, if we do that too, we'll make a great game" which obviously isn't how it works. I did enjoy Valhalla overall, the combat is a lot of fun, the weapon choice + dual wielding is fun, and I think they made improvements on the sie content in areas, but the rest of the game is all over the place, and the loot was a massive step back from Odyssey's for sure.

 

27 minutes ago, Creed Bratton said:

But Ubisoft is afraid of releasing a game with just a female protagonist.

 

Literally true. Eivor's name is Eivor Varinsdottir (dottir as in daughter) regardless if you pick male Eivor or female lol.

 

 

[Creed Bratton]

58 minutes ago, Jason said:

Literally true. Eivor's name is Eivor Varinsdottir (dottir as in daughter) regardless if you pick male Eivor or female lol.

Lol, they're getting even lazier. At least the protagonist in Odyssey had a different name. Even though it was obvious that the devs wanted to make a game about Kassandra, but probably the execs wouldn't allow it. The entire story makes more sense when told from the perspective of a female character. Unless I'm supposed to believe that a male Spartan mercenary is on a quest to find his mommy. Jesus f*ckin' Christ. Alexios should never have been a choice.

Edited May 22 by Creed Bratton

[Jason]

I think there's accounts from devs that they have been wanting to make a female only AC for a while - I think the first was Origins, but it was always shot down by the higher ups. What we got in Odyssey and Valhalla is I guess the compromise. You can absolutely tell that Kassandra is the one the devs put the most care into in Odyssey, Valhalla's more of a mixed bag cause of they did it ("glitch" vs Kassandra being her own character) and Kassandra is quite obviously the the canon protag of Odyssey (proven by the Valhalla DLC in the end) and Eivor's name alone tells you the devs wanted her to be the canon choice too.

 

Begs the question how much better they could've been as protagonists if the higher ups stopped meddling but Ubi are the ones who think a woman on the box means a game won't sell.

[Creed Bratton]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

I think there's accounts from devs that they have been wanting to make a female only AC for a while - I think the first was Origins, but it was always shot down by the higher ups.

I'm sort of glad that it wasn't Origins because Bayek is an awesome character. I guess the female protagonist would have been Aya, and I'm glad that didn't happen because she isn't a very likeable character. But perhaps she would have been a completely different character if she was the protagonist.

[Zello]

On 5/21/2022 at 5:34 AM, Grichka Bogdanoff said:

Would be nice, especially because Syndicate is almost entirely unplayable through bc at the moment and Unity would benefit massively from the 60FPS.

Ubisoft is the gaming company with the most employees instead of having them work on games that will never release and keep on getting rebooted and cancelled have them work on patches for the old games.

 

Black Flag, Unity, Syndicate could all benefit from being 4K/60 FPS and AC1 needs a remaster.

Edited May 22 by Zello

[Craigsters]

I thought the next AC release was going  be live play  MMO play only? and  pay to play too?

Edited May 22 by Craigsters

[Jason]

I don't think it's to be an MMO, I think what you're referring to is "AC Infinity" as they called it. I think the idea for that is that it'll be a hub of sorts for smaller scale AC experiences that they can roll out on the regular.

[Mister Pink]

Aside from bloat,  another major issue I have with these games is that they have the same formulaic cutscenes since forever. It's always over the shoulder back and forth. They is barely no cinematography. Characters in AC don't do anything while talking. Yes, you might talk to colleagues like that in an office space but in real life, people do things while they talk to be people.

 

It's this formulaic medium-close-up dialogue that get so boring I lose interest in the story. It's just a bunch of exposition and boringly presented conversation. They should learn cinema and attempt to inject the principles of cinema into their storytelling. Rockstar are masters of this and you can see how their dialogue scenes or cutscenes are so cinematic because they're using cinematography styles. 

 

It would be superb if Ubisoft cut the bloat, and focused on making a real crafted and cinematic cutscenes like Rockstar does instead of applying some old-ass formula. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24 by Mister Pink

[Creed Bratton]

6 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

They is barely no cinematography. Characters in AC don't do anything while talking. Yes, you might talk to colleagues like that in an office space but in real life, people do things while they talk to be people.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It happens in newer games due to dialogue choices, which was a terrible idea anyway. But it's not fair to say that there's barely no cinematography. At least in older titles. There are some pretty incredible cutscenes in pretty much every game after AC 1 and before Odyssey. Unity is probably the best example of some really good cinematography in an AC game.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Creed Bratton

[DexMacLeod]

1 hour ago, Creed Bratton said:

I don't think that's necessarily true. It happens in newer games due to dialogue choices, which was a terrible idea anyway. But it's not fair to say that there's barely no cinematography. At least in older titles. There are some pretty incredible cutscenes in pretty much every game after AC 1 and before Odyssey. Unity is probably the best example of some really good cinematography in an AC game.

 

Agreed. The boring camera work is really only something that started coming in with the newer titles. Not sure I can blame the dialogue choices entirely, though as Ubisoft seems to be doing that in a few of their games lately. I remember Watch Dogs: Legion was full of that stuff and Breakpoint was just terrible in that regard.

 

I think Ubisoft has just been sort of stepping away from the more story driven games and instead focusing on sandbox style gameplay and exploration. A lot of times (especially in Breakpoint) the story only seems to be there to setup the scenario and guide the players who want a more traditional experience. I generally ignore the stories entirely and just use the games as stealth sandbox games when I'm in the mood for some videogame killing.

Edited May 24 by DexMacLeod
SPAG

[Jason]

They're generic RPG cutscenes that we see in pretty much all third person RPG's. They're dull but doing R* like cutscenes for every single one would be very time consuming I imagine. Cyberpunk did them really mind you, but that's a first person game.

[Mister Pink]

1 hour ago, Creed Bratton said:

I don't think that's necessarily true. It happens in newer games due to dialogue choices, which was a terrible idea anyway. But it's not fair to say that there's barely no cinematography. At least in older titles. There are some pretty incredible cutscenes in pretty much every game after AC 1 and before Odyssey. Unity is probably the best example of some really good cinematography in an AC game.

I hear you. But I was taking specifically about when people are talking. My point is a majority of dialogue is conducted in over-the-shoulder mid-close-up shots. Yes, there is some scenes and some cinematography, I don't deny that but there is far far too much dialogue of two people standing together doing nothing with same angle as referenced in the photos. I noticed back in Black Flag (but didn't start there) and continue to see it over and over and over. It's very formulaic. Whereas in a Rockstar game, characters are always doing something when talking 1 to 1.  If they aren't doing something then there is more cinematography; cuts, push in's to emphasize emotion, more angles. Overall Rockstar creates a more bespoke and dynamic scene. Ubisoft, for the most part and generally speaking specifically for dialogue is the 1-2 over-the-shoulder shot. 

 

Compared to this dialogue scene with from RDR2. It's quite clever. You shoot over-the-shoulder to connect people. And you isolate a character in a single frame to disconnect them. These are basic "rules." For example, in the video below (3:07), notice how they cut to a single shot close-up of Arthur when he doubts himself and says "but I still don't believe in nothing." It wasn't an accident that the director chose to go to a close-up of Morgan and not include the nun in the scene. Because it's a deeply personal and confessional thought to Morgan. It then cuts to the two of them again, connecting them because she's empathizing and relating. Notice at (3:39) when Arthur again get's vulnerable and confessional and says "I'm afraid"  - what does it the camera do? Cuts to an isolated image of Arthur - a single close-up of only him. 

 

 

 

The scene above with the nun starts off as basic over the shoulder but moves towards the chair and they sit down because that's normally what people do when the conversation turns deeply personal and confessional. There is a pat on the shoulder, some medium-close-ups, some close-up and finishes with a wide shot to emcompass the train and the whole scene as they both stand up and say goodbye. RDR2 IMO, isn't deeply touching purely on the basis of it's writing, but the value Rockstar puts on top tier cinematography. With the amount of bloat in AC, I don't think it's possible to craft really bespoke cinematography for each dialogue scene. Which is my overall point. In order to produce that much game, you start having visual cookie-cutter dialogue scenes.  

 

Now, skim through this video below from Odyssey from 11mins to about 25mins and what do you see? Almost 15 mins of the same patter of medium-close-up and over the shoulder. Nobody does anything. They just stand around talking. The camera angles aren't dynamic. Why should they.. people are doing nothing. 

 

Timestamped

 

39 minutes ago, Jason said:

They're generic RPG cutscenes that we see in pretty much all third person RPG's. They're dull but doing R* like cutscenes for every single one would be very time consuming I imagine. Cyberpunk did them really mind you, but that's a first person game.

 

Yeah I agree. if they cut some of the bloat they may actually address this issue. 

 

Edit: I think you guys are right, skimming through older titles, it actually doesn't seem to be much on an issue. 

Edited May 24 by Mister Pink

[Creed Bratton]

1 hour ago, Mister Pink said:

Now, skim through this video below from Odyssey from 11mins to about 25mins and what do you see? Almost 15 mins of the same patter of medium-close-up and over the shoulder. Nobody does anything. They just stand around talking. The camera angles aren't dynamic. Why should they.. people are doing nothing.

Odyssey is absolutely the worst when it comes to cutscenes. Even the animations during cutscenes without a dialogue choice have taken a hit compared to Origins. It's almost Bioware level of jank.

 

But that's Ubisoft for you. You can't really compare perfectionists like R*, that pours hundreds of millions into a game every 5-10 years to a company that destroys its own franchises with annual releases featuring single player microtransactions. They will cut as many corners as they can in order to shove in as many features as possible in order to tick certain boxes. I am convinced that the animations in Odyssey took a hit due to the implementation of dialogue options and gender choice for the protagonist. They needed to make sure that the animations are neutral enough to fit both genders and that they can be reused during dialogues for as many characters as possible. Mo-cap for every cutscene featuring either male or female protagonist and for every dialogue choice would have been far too expensive. The result is the sh*t in the video you posted. Even PS2 era GTA cutscenes look more natural.

Edited May 24 by Creed Bratton

[Zello]

June 2nd

[Grichka Bogdanoff]

Cool

Now do Unity

[Zello]

1 hour ago, Grichka Bogdanoff said:

Cool

Now do Unity

That sh*t should be mandatory. Ubisoft should be arrested if they don't do it for Unity

[Mister Pink]

Origins is on Game Pass now so I'll try it out to just to see the map. Hopefully the map opens quickly to explore. Will be great to explore game for first time in 60fps. In fairness Origins looks gorgeous and Odyssey is, even after playing Valhalla. 

 

I've my Odyssey game on hold but I'm only level 23 and finding levelling up a bit slow but I'll try Origins just to see. 

[Failed Again]

Playing ESO, I think I am picking up Headlice after all the dialog from quests.

 

scratches' head.

[Zello]