Assassins Creed Valhalla - set in the Viking age

Ah, the good ol' times when the word "black" was allowed in movies and no one was offended of that.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

They are not real because this is a game.

 

Nah Ubisoft keeps real-world religion usually out of their stories, AC1 frames the crusades as a conflict between Europeans and Arabs without really taking sides. I mean the Templars in AC aren't Christian nor are the Assassins Muslims. I am almost certain that the conflict between Pagans and Christian will just be in the background.

 

So besides being a dumbfuck you are also a liar. That's good to know.

 

Well, I dislike the modern-day story arc because it's unnecessary.

What is AC really about?

It's about parkour and assassinations in various settings.

What does the modern-day story arc add to that theme?

In my opinion, nothing.

It's as if they already had a great game (talking about AC1 and AC2), and instead of fleshing it out, fixing bugs and improving performance, they decided to spend hundreds of hours on creating a story about ANIMUS, GENETIC MEMORY, GAY BARTENDER, ABSPERGO and whatever else the modern story arc is about.

 

I loved the modern meta story in the first few games because it made the IP unique and interesting. That said the last time it marginally made sense was AC3. Since then it's been more and more pants-on-head retarded.

 

Inb4 Kotaku:

"The Templars hunger for a one world rule....AND THAT'S A GOOD THING".

 

Well that's my point, you and many others see it as unnecessary because it is handled badly. Assassin's Creed as whole shows how to create a bad story - when there is no khatarsis for audience, you use deus ex machina to solve previously presented problems and have Franchise Lead decide that something is non-canon only to revert his statement. Like I have written on previous page the current universe is a mess. If it was logical and had more screentime I think you would have a different opinion. I can also expand on your statement and say it doesn't add nothing because Ubisoft didn't want it to add anything yet they couldn't exclude it as it is what defines the games.

Assassin's Creed is about conflict of both conspiracy groups about total world control. Or so it was because currently it is about supernatural mcguffins chase and your question "what AC is really about" just can't be straight answered - even the developers don't have a clear vision for the series. The parkour and assassinations were just unique mechanics that defined first games - they also fit considering first game was about literal real-world assassins who used wall-climbing and killed enemies of Saracens in open public. To remove those things is like to remove cars from GTA or guns from Counter Strike.

What it adds? It connects games together, gives you a reason to play new ones plus every game is serving as a build-up for a climax in present day. Or again it should have.

The games were polished out which was the series downfall as next versions were too similar too each other and just as repetetive. If you played AC:2 then you can say you also played AC: Brotherhood, Revelations, AC:3, AC:4, AC:Rogue, AC:Liberation. It's ridiculous.

The series in my opinion lost it's direction with Patrice Desilets leave mid-through AC:Brotherhood production and it shows as you get unnecessary Lucy betrayal and her death at the game's end. AC:2 ending is an added insult to injury but as a direct sequel it got a pass. AC:Revelations was a cash-grab and made people tired of the series. AC:3 was a pure disaster and showed how developers got disconnected from the series main plot by closing all loose ends and killing main protagonist in the almost worst way possible.

 

Learn English bitch, and stuff your impotent accusation up your ass where it belongs.

English motherfucker, do you speak it?

Are dictionaries not available in fucking Portugal. I think they are, but clearly out of your reach.

Ironically, here's the quote that proves you are a liar, not to mention a butthurt little Ubishill.

 

Proving my point yet again

 

Yes, you are not very good at English - every time you post, you prove your point again.

That's the only point you're proving, dumbfuck.

 

Sure, I am proving that my English isn't very good and that you are a liar.
And between those two qualities I'll happily take the former.

 

Right on the first part, but demonstrably wrong on the second. Look, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

This must be a mental form of the fetal position, after having your feeble attempts at rhetoric bashed into the ground, to accuse your interlocutor of being a liar. I can just see it before me, tears streaking down your cheeks as you pound the keyboard with your face crying



HE'S A LIAR ASSCREED IS SUPER GOOD AND HISTORICALLY PERFECT BECAUSE UBI SAID SO AND THEY HAD CONSULTANTS!

 

I think that pretty much sums it up. Patrice Desilets may have had a bit of an insane vision for the series, but it sounded fun in the sort of campy over-the-top vein of things. This isn't uncommon knowledge, but to recap: his original idea was to have the bleeding effect turn Desmond into a super assassin who would eventually be able to travel through time directly, visiting different eras all in one final game. That's the best kind of silly, and given that peak Assassin's Creed has always been fairly silly, I think it would've fit in very well with the first few games. Thing is, it also would've meant the series would've needed to end after several entries. The story would've gotten finished. Now, given, that's a stupid statement and anyone with half a brain knows that they could've done infinite spin-offs, but it doesn't seem like Ubisoft was aware of this and decided to turn it into the gaming equivalent of a TV show that lasts about 20 seasons past the original creator's intended end point with all of the quality control of burned-down Walmart.

This also extends into the gameplay. AC has always had trouble committing to social stealth or actually allowing the player to be an assassin, but they kept trying at least for a bit after Desilets. Unity and Syndicate, in particular, did their best to emulate Hitman in some fairly entertaining ways. But those games didn't do well, so we ended up with microtransaction-riddled open-world RPGs. At this stage, the franchise has less gameplay identity than it even has a story identity, and while I thought that Origins was alright and Odyssey was enjoyable mediocrity, I can't see them climbing above that when they seem to have less creativity or vision than your average Call of Duty release. It's pretty easy to argue that Origins and Odyssey were the shot in the arm that a dying franchise needed but they're not unique or interesting in any way, and instead lean even harder into most of the things you could complain about in AC games to begin with - dubious historicity, repetitive open world spaces, and poorly written stories. It's also easy to argue that they're not really any worse than the games that came before them, as Assassin's Creed probably has the most games I'd describe as explicitly disappointing out of any franchise I can think of. Thing is, while I'd see the previous games as having sparks of brilliance mixed in with painfully stupid design decisions and mountains of schlock that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, I can't imagine the current state of them ever going above being "kind of okay I guess". And that's a real shame.

 

Cool story bro... except:

Do demonstrate where in this entire thread I've defended AC gameplay.

Also a wojak, srsly... Is that the best you can do?

 

Those wankers from reddit banned me cause I insulted Odyssey & Quebec. And insulted a wanker who suggested Odyssey should've been a Prince of Persia title, like hell I am letting that comment go.

Goddamn! Man can't insult in peace these days!

 

prince of persia > ass creed

 

Fifteen fucking pages for an AC game? Are you fucking kidding me?

 

Every triple A casual game on the dex usually gets at least a 400 page thread before release.

 

AC is RPG game now set in best fictional semi-hystorical world.

 

I hate this cunt

 

I disagree. Desilets had created indeed interesting story but having a chosen one able to time-travel is yet another plot device and a dangerous one - look at Terminator universe and problematic timeline due to events constantly altering it. Also it is cheap. It would've been better to have full modern story game dedicated for stopping doomsday and modern day Templars but sticking to Desmond being one of many humans with hidden potential due to specific DNA and foreshadowing that the conflict hasn't been won yet. Ubisoft would then have a free space to fill the gaps, introduce new protagonists and develop modern-day arc as they see fit without all these retcons.

 

I certainly can cede the point that time travel often is a bad idea but I think there's a key difference here - this would've taken place during the finale and only the finale. I suppose the argument could've been made that Ubisoft wouldn't have let that go and you'd end up with the AC equivalents of Terminator Dark Fate, where time bullshit is used to introduce newer, better Templars after the assassins officially won and all sorts of crap like that. But hey, I'm just generally partial to the idea of an actual finale or story arc conclusion so that's probably altering my opinion as well. I'd rather have a silly ending that Ubi could use to ruin the series with sequels I can ignore than to never even get there in the first place.

 

I'm a fan of stories that have a beginning, middle and an end. Maybe they're good, maybe not. But if time travel and\or multiverses are being included, they're disqualified in my eyes. If you, as a writer, have to resort to time travel and parallel universes to tell a story or explain something or fix some mistakes, then you're a bad writer.

 

Tell that Nomura! He fcked over FF7.