Multiplat Assassin's Creed Valhalla

Remove this Banner Ad

Jatz said:
In what sense?

Once the decision was made, I hadn’t noticed any different?
Click to expand...
Its a nothing choice at best
But the way they present it is just shitty from so many angles of inclusiveness
 

Log in to remove this ad.

gaskin said:
They should have just gone with one Eivor. Unlike Odyssey where there is a purpose to playing male or female, the choice is completely pointless in Valhalla.
Click to expand...
But that's a story/game design choice as well

If they made it cosmetic then that was a choice
 
Jatz said:
In what sense?

Once the decision was made, I hadn’t noticed any different?
Click to expand...
There's dialogue that assumes you're a chick. Not to mention they talk about marrying you off to Sigurd at the start. You're clearly meant to be a chick, so they should have just stuck with that. It's like they couldn't roll with a female title character without fear of backlash, so they gave us a stupid choice.
 
Eivor's last name is also Varinsdottir which by historic Nordic naming conventions means "daughter of Varin", so canon Eivor is female. For a male the name would be Varinson. I don't mind either way so for continuity sake I wish Ubisoft would just commit to male or female protagonist rather than fence sitting. I played male Eivor and Eaglebearer and feel like my playthroughs were a bit of a lie.
 
Playing through at the moment and have probably gone through 3 of the alliance map stories, Im fairly slow and explore so its a significant amount of hours. Problem is I haven't found the story all that rewarding for what the gameplay is, think maybe im getting fatigue from this style of AC being just to destroy everyone. loved Origins and Odyssey but not feeling this at the moment (Kind of craving the old style AC games).

Just started a playthough of Mass effect legendary edition in the middle of this and its still as epic as the first time (I havent played since original release but is one of my favourite franchises along with AC from the start) and giving me nostalgia.

Maybe its just me but the size of these games is making the day to day experience of playing rather mediocre until you reach key points.

Does Valhalla ramp up or should I just focus on the main story lines
 
Just on the which gender is canon thing, I only just noticed the small bit where when you sit around the fire at the cabin (I'm assuming this only happens after you complete the game) a hooded female Eivor appears.

Has anyone else done Dawn of Ragnarok yet? I grabbed it as it's about $10 off in the current digital sales. Firstly my opinion on the pricing and value of the product:

I get it that there has to be a limitation to what's included in the season pass. This game has had some of the best post launch support in terms of both free and paid content of any single player game I can think of. I did the usual 100% every area on top of my completion and got about 25 hours out of it. But was it worth $45? No. ~$25 would be fairer value. Besides the new "hugr" powers (which add very little to the game) there is nothing new. It's a continuation of the Havi story that you begin in Asgard and Jotunheim during the base game. Unlike the mythical location DLCs of Odyssey there is no real change of scenery as Svartalfheim is just more of the same.

I'll put my thoughts on the story, the content, and my 2 cents of where it sits in AC in spoilers. Massive rant incoming.

So with Dawn of Ragnarok supposedly the final major DLC the main arc of Valhalla is left unfinished unless some small free content is coming to tie up the loose ends.

My two biggest burning issues are:

Are we just supposed to forget about Layla? The AC reboot from Origins to Valhalla was supposed to be a trilogy and I feel as if her arc is incomplete. Loki's next moves are covered (which I assume is meant to be applied to Basim) but I thought it was a cop out how it was only revealed in a few lines at the end by Hyrrokin. Could have at least got a tiny cut scene or something if it's meant to be a cliff hanger for the next chapter in the series.

Why was Eivor buried in North America? We know they visited Vinland as per the chapter in the story, but why did Eivor up and leave England to be elaborately buried in North America? There is a note about this question on the wall in the cabin and Layla mentions it early in the base game. It is never answered

I know there is a crowd who wish there were no modern day stuff in AC games, but Dawn of Ragnarok is the example on why there must be IMO. To me AC games are about using real points of history and inserting fantasy with modern curiosities like conspiracy theories about secret societies and ancient astronauts/previous advanced and lost civilisations. These games and the AC universe need boundaries. At its best it is a fantasy series rooted in fact and with that provided said boundaries. The mythology chapters of Odyssey and now Valhalla are actually ridiculous. What are they? They're surely not "real". We saw in Valhalla that the Isu aren't gods in possession of magic but are flesh and blood. The pieces of Eden that seem magical are just technology. So what is the point of these mythology chapters? These characters I understand are supposed to be sages carrying on the Isu memories, but I think there is a better way that's more fitting of the AC series to tell it.

Without the boundaries of real life physics (ok, I know it's a video game but get my drift) and a period setting that is setup by the modern day element then AC is something completely different. Dawn of Ragnarok may as well just be God of War. It even followed the similar story of a father's vengeance. What it has to do with the AC universe I honestly don't know. Even without the mythology stuff you can't just plonk another AC game in any period and leave it at that. Again it needs parameters and boundaries. Why that period? What is the purpose? What is the context of the Isu technogy we're searching for this time? This is why the modern day plot is required but it just simply needs to be done better. It has to be engaging and not break the flow of play.

Valhalla in the end just turned into a bloated mess IMO. The base game was just busy work for little reward. The DLCs missed the mark - wrath of the druids missed an opportunity by not elaborating on what was clearly an Isu device, siege of Paris was an example of plonking an AC game into a setting with little context "oh Vikings from this same era were involved in this event, so let's put Eivor there just because", and I've given my thoughts on Dawn of Ragnarok.

I've really enjoyed the series reboot since Origins after the formula got stale by Syndicate. I really hope the next instalment is another step forward though I think Origins-Valhalla has run its course.
 
gaskin said:
They should have just gone with one Eivor. Unlike Odyssey where there is a purpose to playing male or female, the choice is completely pointless in Valhalla.
Click to expand...
what is the difference to playing male or female in Odyssey?

I played it through as a female
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

00Stinger said:
what is the difference to playing male or female in Odyssey?

I played it through as a female
Click to expand...

The one you don't choose has a purpose in the game. Even though Kassandra is cannon, they have given you a reason to play as Alexios if you wish to.
 
dwwaino said:
Team Alexios.
Click to expand...

New York Yankees Reaction GIF by MLB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dwwaino
Multiplat Assassin's Creed Mirage - October 5th, 2023.
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
5K
Scallop Industry Thug
Scallop Industry Thug

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top