I don't understand the grinding issue in Assassin's Creed Odyssey

[oni-link]

What a stupid ass rebuttal. There are no threads about AC Origins "grinding" despite the fact that it's more grindy than Odyssey, but I guess number of threads made invalidates actual facts. That's absolutely hilarious.
Especially considering ERA wasn't even a thing when Witcher 3 came out.

Click to shrink...

To have an opinion you kinda have to be informed instead of keeping spouting random factually innacurate shit all day, though.

Click to shrink...

Is there a reason you're so angry all the time?

I mean, being nice isn't exactly a site rule but why always come at things really aggressively?

I don't agree with a lot of people on Era, but I can still get my points across without coming across like I'm foaming at the mouth

 

[Deleted member 8468]

Crazy how every thread about this game boils down to arguing over the "grind". Such polarizing threads.

I'll say once again I really enjoy this game. Never did the mindless quests but completed the majority of authored side quests. Never felt behind or the need to grind. Players who want to strictly beeline the story will likely not enjoy this.

 

[NDWest14]

The side quests are as good as Witcher 3.

Origins, this complaint is validated, but Odyssey fixed that by adding an interesting location with good side quests.

Hell there's even blatant 2 minute ones that garner large XP. They're hour glasses on the map showing that they are short as hell.

I'm lvl 33, about 45 hours in and even post patch to tone down the lvl scaling I've refused to do it.

 

[Deleted member 18400]

A lot of padding goes on because it's just lazy game design......

Click to shrink...

Anyone else remember when we used to ban people for lazy dev rhetoric? Yeah....those were the days.

This argument isn't worth having on this forum.

Either you enjoy playing the game with the content it has or you don't.

 

[BernardoOne]

Is there a reason you're so angry all the time?

I mean, being nice isn't exactly a site rule but why always come at things really aggressively?

I don't agree with a lot of people on Era, but I can still get my points across without coming across like I'm foaming at the mouth

Click to shrink...

Angry? You need to be angry to point out a stupid rebuttal is stupid?

 

[TheClaw7667]

Many people assume that they should be able to just streamline the main quest, apparently unaware that in an RPG playing side content is just simply part of the genre.

Click to shrink...

Ubisoft offers exactly what those people want. They just decided to charge money for it instead of offering a different play style in the options. If they believed in their design completely they wouldn't offer it at all. They know damn well part of their player base will feel the grind and are hoping to get an extra $10 out of those players.

 

[Deleted member 888]

Anyone else remember when we used to ban people for lazy dev rhetoric? Yeah....those were the days.

This argument isn't worth having on this forum.

Either you enjoy playing the game with the content it has or you don't.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure I get you? I'm not calling individual devs lazy?

It was an opinionated statement that I tend to find a lot of padding can be lazy game design if it's not handled with care or propped up in some way. That's just my preference. Largely speaking I would take traversing around an average sized town with hand-crafted quests, text and things to do, over a Skyrim like size map where the vast majority of content feels copy/paste. Especially for fantasy based RPGs where I think town/city life and exploration can be killer.

I'm not big on randomly generated content in general, so that is my bias towards less of it. Not that it can never work, it simply often pushes me to feel the content is "lazy". Mainly because my interaction is lazy. Often mash x to skip NPC generic text about needing to craft clothes, mash x to fast travel, mash x to kill generic enemy, mash x to pickup generic fabric loot from enemy and then fast travel back. NPC then says "I'll now make leather pants, thanks". Woo.

Most gameplay revolves around repetition, but open world game design often comes down to how well can devs disguise it or make it feel less "lazy". Or even eliminate most of the generic content by pursuing a focus in hand-crafted even if that comes at the expense of "Our world is 25,000 miles wide". Or the king of randomly generated, NMS saying "Our world is endless". Yes it can take massive teams and years to craft huge worlds, but as impressed as I can be with the hard work that has gone on to create them, that's not going to influence my perceived truth around how much fun I am having, or how intrigued I am by the quest content/writing.

I'm playing through Spiderman right now and the side-quest marker content is prime copy/paste and pretty generic (Stop one shop break-in or mugging and that's them all - So go to a new area, unlock your tower and do another 5 break-ins), but the card they have up their sleeve is the traversal and "power" you get through being a superhero/Spiderman pretty much disguises the mundane. A lot of people fantasize about being able to fly, and yeah, it's pretty exhilarating getting close to that in Spiderman zipping around and doing "fast travel" in a way that isn't bring up map, click marker, see loading screen.

But that is something that Insomniac could use to their advantage because it is a superhero game. Other open-world RPGs while they might have powerful characters, or things like magic abilities, don't often get to give you traversal like in Spiderman. Water travel in AC has been a long favourite of mine, Black Flag is still my favourite AC game, so Ubisoft does a lot right there. But then again Black Flag was full of similar filler, but like Spiderman, because I'm in love with pirates/water travel, that elevated the experience over some of the mundane (for me). That's the crux of open world games, and to some extent their design, you may reel in many, but alienate others. It's still worth listening to all feedback, especially around any sort of level or progression-gating you try and implement. Boring quests or fetch quest design is one thing to discuss, gating and/or how you progress in your world is another. Both are parts of open-world game design though, and often inter-linked.

 

[Deleted member 5764]

From my understanding, it just depends on what angle you're coming from. Some people want to just blast through the story and do mission after mission until it's done. They're the ones who get hit with level/money gates because the game is designed to encourage exploration.

Crazy folks like me who want to 100% an area before moving on have the opposite problem. You end up being a bit OP for the story content.

Really, I just wish the devs would build the side-content into the story more. There were plenty of side mission in Origins that were more interesting to me than the main story. I gather that some folks just think of it as "filler" or lesser content because it doesn't follow the critical path. It'd be nice (and ballsy) of the devs to maybe give players less choice and tie more of that content into the main path.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Most people must not be picking up the contracts or something. They excessively reward you for doing things you're going to be doing in the game anyway. Also, doing a conquest battle once every 10 hours or so. These take less than five minutes and also reward you significantly.

Click to shrink...

I have to look up how to do a damn conquest battle again. The game is not at all obvious about how to do this after the first one.

 

[jtb]

I have to look up how to do a damn conquest battle again. The game is not at all obvious about how to do this after the first one.

Click to shrink...

Weaken the faction controlling the area, and they become available (just look on your map). Need to bring down to 1/3rd or so by looting supplies, attacking strongholds, etc.

 

[Bricktop]

You're being just as disingenuous suggesting everyone wants to skip 90% of the content.

Click to shrink...

No I'm not, because I actually played the game and I did skip content. People want to just do the main quest, skip all the ship battles, skip the conquests and bounties, and skip anything not mandatory. If all you want to do is go from point A to point B to point C you bought the wrong game.

From my understanding, it just depends on what angle you're coming from. Some people want to just blast through the story and do mission after mission until it's done. They're the ones who get hit with level/money gates because the game is designed to encourage exploration.

Crazy folks like me who want to 100% an area before moving on have the opposite problem. You end up being a bit OP for the story content.

Really, I just wish the devs would build the side-content into the story more. There were plenty of side mission in Origins that were more interesting to me than the main story. I gather that some folks just think of it as "filler" or lesser content because it doesn't follow the critical path. It'd be nice (and ballsy) of the devs to maybe give players less choice and tie more of that content into the main path.

Click to shrink...

The funny part is, had Ubisoft made the Gold icon quests mandatory, no of these same people would be complaining. But because they are optional story quests, people with this "i should be able to do only the main quest" attitude act like having to do then is a grind.

 

[Zafir]

From my understanding, it just depends on what angle you're coming from. Some people want to just blast through the story and do mission after mission until it's done. They're the ones who get hit with level/money gates because the game is designed to encourage exploration.

Crazy folks like me who want to 100% an area before moving on have the opposite problem. You end up being a bit OP for the story content.

Really, I just wish the devs would build the side-content into the story more. There were plenty of side mission in Origins that were more interesting to me than the main story. I gather that some folks just think of it as "filler" or lesser content because it doesn't follow the critical path. It'd be nice (and ballsy) of the devs to maybe give players less choice and tie more of that content into the main path.

Click to shrink...

I think that's still simplifying the issue though. As I said before I did do all the side quests on the map in the areas I went through and it still wasn't enough. I was still underlevelled. So instead I had to go out of my way to some othter islands trying to find more side quests.

It's frustrating to me that everyone is just suggesting those of us who have problems just want to beeline the main story.

That's not it at all, we just want more choice over how to play the game. In ACO's(both ACO games infact) case it basically wants you do to every single side quest AND go off to do the level specific side content islands before you do the next main story. You can't even delay that content either, say you were really engrossed in the main story and just wanted to see the next bit before you do those side quests. Nope, game says no and you have to do all the next block of side content before you move on to see the story content you were so engrossed in.

No I'm not, because I actually played the game and I did skip content. People want to just do the main quest, skip all the ship battles, skip the conquests and bounties, and skip anything not mandatory. If all you want to do is go from point A to point B to point C you bought the wrong game.

Click to shrink...

You are because you're disregarding those of us who also did actually play the game and experienced issues while doing a lot of the content.

Stop being disingenuous and pushing your own experience on everyone else.

 

[Manu]

Ubisoft offers exactly what those people want. They just decided to charge money for it instead of offering a different play style in the options. If they believed in their design completely they wouldn't offer it at all. They know damn well part of their player base will feel the grind and are hoping to get an extra $10 out of those players.

Click to shrink...

They do? Because from what people who have actually played the game have said every time this thread is posted, even with the XP booster you still have to play a fair amount of side content, just less of it.

There's this narrative that the XP booster eliminates the grind, when if anything it only reduces it marginally.

 

[Deleted member 5764]

I think that's still simplifying the issue though. As I said before I did do all the side quests on the map in the areas I went through and it still wasn't enough. I was still underlevelled. So instead I had to go out of my way to some othter islands trying to find more side quests.

It's frustrating to me that everyone is just suggesting those of us who have problems just want to beeline the main story.

That's not it at all, we just want more choice over how to play the game. In ACO's(both ACO games infact) case it basically wants you do to every single side quest AND go off to do the level specific side content islands before you do the next main story. You can't even delay that content either, say you were really engrossed in the main story and just wanted to see the next bit before you do those side quests. Nope, game says no and you have to do all the next block of side content before you move on to see the story content you were so engrossed in.

Click to shrink...

I'd argue that the idea of having to go "out of your way" to other islands is perfectly in line with what I'm talking about here. In that case, the developers clearly wanted you to explore a bit more and failed to make it appealing enough. My suggestion was that they build that side stuff into the story more organically. The scenario you described is a perfect example of that not happening. Why end one mission on a cliffhanger of sorts that then delays the player?

This isn't just an issue with Assassin's Creed though.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Weaken the faction controlling the area, and they become available (just look on your map). Need to bring down to 1/3rd or so by looting supplies, attacking strongholds, etc.

Click to shrink...

Are you supposed to only weaken one side? Or both? How do you know who is fighting who?

 

[Ralemont]

People want to play this game in a way the game isn't structured to support and when they can't do that they latch on to "grind" as a way to pretend it's a flaw in the game instead of a strength.

Are you supposed to only weaken one side? Or both? How do you know who is fighting who?

Click to shrink...

You can only weaken the faction that is currently in control. The map will tell you who this is, along with who the leader is, whether a Conquest battle is available (the markers on the map will be colored instead of greyed out), what strength the defense is. I believe the strength of defense only affects the protection around the leader, though.

Once you weaken the controlling faction enough, you can choose to either defend that faction or continue to assist the overthrow by going to either of the Conquest camps on the map.

 

[TheClaw7667]

They do? Because from what people who have actually played the game have said every time this thread is posted, even with the XP booster you still have to play a fair amount of side content, just less of it.

There's this narrative that the XP booster eliminates the grind, when if anything it only reduces it marginally.

Click to shrink...

So which is it then? Is there so much grind that the XP booster barely affects it, or is there so little grind that the XP booster is pointless?

I very much doubt a double XP boost is only marginally affecting the leveling. Provide examples.

 

[DOT_mjo]

It was literally never an issue. The game didn't force you to do anything out of the ordinary to level up. I found myself actually 10 levels up where I needed to be at any given point just from trying to clear out as many locations as possible with the occasional side quest thrown in.

 

[The Traveller]

I beat Origins earlier this year and did many of the side quests but had the feeling towards the end I was ready to move on. Odyssey really improves on many things in Origins that make it the better game and ultimately feel less grindy.

I feel like playing on the hardest difficulty is the best way to play. This way I feel you take advantage of more of the game systems and get a better experience. Gear really matters, so I'm always exploring and on the look out to increase my damage or get materials to add bonuses.

Side quests are better overall and that helps when really all they want you to do is get some herbs. The dialogue system helps keep you engaged and care more about what the person is saying.

The main story and character (Kassandra in my case) is better than Bayek. It was sad what happened to him early on but I just felt he was yelling or angry all the time.

Greece is more interesting to explore as they took some liberties and created really cool environments with giant statues. Egypt was a beautiful game as well but I prefer the blue oceans and green hills over the yellow deserts.

For me Odyssey improves on many things in Origins and I haven't felt a grind yet (Level 18). Maybe it's something Ubisoft can address next time for those who just want to see the main story and that's it.

 

[K Samedi]

Obviously, the game is carefully designed in such a way to get people to pay up with micro transactions. Its pointless to discuss grinding when the game actually has a payment option to let things go faster. Why would they make this game go slow in the first place? I've seen a lot of threads complaining about this issue and its because people understand why Ubisoft chose to design the game the way it is.

 

[Zafir]

I'd argue that the idea of having to go "out of your way" to other islands is perfectly in line with what I'm talking about here. In that case, the developers clearly wanted you to explore a bit more and failed to make it appealing enough. My suggestion was that they build that side stuff into the story more organically. The scenario you described is a perfect example of that not happening. Why end one mission on a cliffhanger of sorts that then delays the player?

Click to shrink...

Oh I'm not disagreeing with the suggestion. I think you're absolutely right that it should be more intertwined with the main story organically but I don't think that's the entire issue. I don't mind exploring to be honest, like Breath of the WIld to me was entirely prepped up by it's fantastic world and exploration even though I cared not for the weapon system. That game doesn't really intertwine the entire world in the story. However even exploration is kind of gated in Odyssey since all the areas have their own level brackets. As I've said before I feel like the structure of Odyssey resembles a MMORPG more than any other RPG where you have to keep looking at the map to figure out where you should be going rather than anything feeling organic. Playing the game organically to me just meant I ended up hitting a level gate as I already mentioned.

This isn't just an issue with Assassin's Creed though.

Click to shrink...

Maybe but I'm not sure I agree just because I think a lot more RPG games are a bit more fluid in their levelling structure. As I said in a previous post I think this is a joint issue between the progression structure and the fact that levels in the game mean far too much. Just being a few levels under causes a much larger disparity in damage to health than it really should. Being underlevelled in a lot of RPGs aren't the end of the world, since you can usually still do it and if anything it might actually give a bit of a fun challenge. Hell many RPGs can be completed at level 1 for challenge runs. Where as in Odyssey the enemies become a bit health spongy for my liking if you're underlevelled(I guess this may improve late game when you've got enough points to make a full skill build).

 

[Orangecoke]

So i don't understand the grinding issue in this game. Many players are still complaining about this.
I m currently at Lvl 42, and i just had "THAT" sad scene in Athens after meeting Xenia, Hippcrates and the girl in Corinthia.

That Corinthia zone is a 22-25 lvl zone (but in my game, enemies are same lvl as me) . I'm 20 levels above what's necessary in that region, and i'm playing on Hard Difficult.
I do every side quests that i find. I don't go in a new region if i didn't cleared the one i'am currently. I do every day the daily quest for orichalcum...
So i can understand that i may have a higher level.
But 20 levels above??? I mean what did some players here to feel a grinding wall in this game??

Click to shrink...

I put a ton of hours into it, loved it, played various side quests because they were fun, and never felt any grind at all.

 

[Jimrpg]

If all the side quests were labelled main quest - this literally wouldn't be a problem.

 

[ckareset]

If all the side quests were labelled main quest - this literally wouldn't be a problem.

Click to shrink...

It would because the main quest would feel pointless

 

[ShapeGSX]

It would because the main quest would feel pointless

Click to shrink...

I disagree. The "side quests" are well done with a lot of dialog, character exposition and choices (choices that matter in the story). I actually don't even think that they should be called side quests.

 

[NDWest14]

I beat Origins earlier this year and did many of the side quests but had the feeling towards the end I was ready to move on. Odyssey really improves on many things in Origins that make it the better game and ultimately feel less grindy.

I feel like playing on the hardest difficulty is the best way to play. This way I feel you take advantage of more of the game systems and get a better experience. Gear really matters, so I'm always exploring and on the look out to increase my damage or get materials to add bonuses.

Side quests are better overall and that helps when really all they want you to do is get some herbs. The dialogue system helps keep you engaged and care more about what the person is saying.

The main story and character (Kassandra in my case) is better than Bayek. It was sad what happened to him early on but I just felt he was yelling or angry all the time.

Greece is more interesting to explore as they took some liberties and created really cool environments with giant statues. Egypt was a beautiful game as well but I prefer the blue oceans and green hills over the yellow deserts.

For me Odyssey improves on many things in Origins and I haven't felt a grind yet (Level 18). Maybe it's something Ubisoft can address next time for those who just want to see the main story and that's it.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much my exact experience.

I got Origins Holiday 2017, beat it around September 2018.

Had ZERO interest in Odyssey, early previews looked like more Origins and that game was grindy AF. I burned out no less than 6 times playing it, the side quests were mundane and the desert.....well it's ALL DESERT it's Egypt after all.

I simply cannot pull myself away from Odyssey. It fixed most of everything that was wrong with Origins. The "grind" is hardly there, you're awarded nearly every 4 minutes with XP, either by finding something or someone (bounty hunters) finding you.

Initially, I thought that lvl scaling was BS, but kept playing and lvl is just a base number when you understand the system.

System is easy. Example: Level 30, but have a level 32 mission. It will be a challenge if you don't prepare, but preparing isn't grinding per say. You can grind, in fact I ususally opt to do a side quest or 2 because they're fun, interesting and often reward good loot, BUT if you opt no to, you can simply visit a blacksmith. Too low on resourses to upgrade, ok, just engrave instead. There are options and none of which lean you towards spending real world money to progress. I know it's easy to conspire that all of this is because of microtransactions but 40+ hours in and I've never felt that "grind" like I did in Origins.

Only thing I'll disagree with you on is Bayek > Kassandra. Just found his VO better and motivation more interesting, I liked his anger and emotion. Though historically, I've contrasted with the popular opinion, I'm one of the rare few that liked Connor and his brute nature.

 

[Baccus]

Obviously, the game is carefully designed in such a way to get people to pay up with micro transactions.

Click to shrink...

That's why we all bought them.

Wait, I didn't? Most people didn't? Maybe we got a magical copy? I finished twice!

 

[Ebullientprism]

Man who is doing EVERY side quest doesnt understand the problem of people that are doing NO side quests. :P

Two sets of people yelling straight past each other.

In all seriousness though, there is definitely some grinding involved if you want to go through the main story mostly but no more than your average RPG. And you can always drop the difficulty down.

This "problem" got way the fuck overblown because of Micro transactions.

 

[ckareset]

I disagree. The "side quests" are well done with a lot of dialog, character exposition and choices (choices that matter in the story). I actually don't even think that they should be called side quests.

Click to shrink...

Only some of them. A lot of them are pointless which is why they are side quest.

There is a balance that the game didnt achieve. Or it just needs to do a better job allowing people to actually play as they please. I mean as an assassin I should be able to kill without being leveled up and spamming specials. It's ridiculous how they went out of their way to stop actual assassinations.

 

[Jimrpg]

It would because the main quest would feel pointless

Click to shrink...

my point was that the main quest and side quest is more or less the same sort of thing anyways.

Man who is doing EVERY side quest doesnt understand the problem of people that are doing NO side quests. :P

Two sets of people yelling straight past each other.

In all seriousness though, there is definitely some grinding involved if you want to go through the main story mostly but no more than your average RPG. And you can always drop the difficulty down.

This "problem" got way the fuck overblown because of Micro transactions.

Click to shrink...

THIS.

 

[M1chl]

It's a non issue, Origins was far worse. Only because Jim fatass Sterling read it in here and make video about it, it becomes an "issue", that's about it.

 

[Ralemont]

Man who is doing EVERY side quest doesnt understand the problem of people that are doing NO side quests. :P

Click to shrink...

We understand, we are just correctly pointing out that they are playing the game wrong. Not every game needs to cater to every style of play.

 

[Charlotte Lucas]

Grind is doing the same repetitive content over and over again to level up not 'thing you don't want to do'. If you have a problem with doing side content, just say that instead of classifying everything that is not the main story as 'grinding'.

Going by this definition, I also didn't experience grind. I played on normal and I only uncovered the map and completed the golden side quests, the majority of which were as detailed as the main quests. While I picked up jobs on the board, I didn't go out of my way to complete them since most were completed as you played the game normally. I did not engage in the cultist, boating, mercenary, or conquest systems. I did not do daily tasks, weekly tasks, or clear out crypts or forts unless they took thirty seconds to complete or were part of the main story.

That is a shit ton of content that I skipped over, yet I was 20 levels above the required at one point and never felt pressured to buy xp boosts.

 

[Patitoloco]

It's a non issue, Origins was far worse. Only because Jim fatass Sterling read it in here and make video about it, it becomes an "issue", that's about it.

Click to shrink...

Please, stop generalizing.

I don't watch Jim Sterling, I don't watch "rants" in Youtube, I have my own opinions.

It's not hard to understand that, for some, other games with the same template did it better. I'm not bashing Ubisoft, not bashing the game, just saying it could have been done better.

 

[Blackthorn]

The grind controversy was invented by people who saw the XP micro transaction and then worked their logic backwards to make an argument that the game was designed to force players towards it.

But this argument quickly falls apart because the game isn't a grind by any commonly accepted definition of the word in videogames.

Since the original argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, people are now instead trying to change the definition of grind to be in line with the argument that Odyssey is grindy.

It's a really transparent example of storm in a teacup invented controversy which damages legitimate criticism of predatory business practices.

 

[Mirage]

I disagree. The "side quests" are well done with a lot of dialog, character exposition and choices (choices that matter in the story). I actually don't even think that they should be called side quests.

Click to shrink...

A decent number of them add to the overall story for sure.

 

[M1chl]

Please, stop generalizing.

I don't watch Jim Sterling, I don't watch "rants" in Youtube, I have my own opinions.

It's not hard to understand that, for some, other games with the same template did it better. I'm not bashing Ubisoft, not bashing the game, just saying it could have been done better.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough, I just saw the AC:Odyssey outrage in here after that video, that's all.

 

[ty_hot]

My god you guys really twist the meaning of stuff if needed to protect/hate a game you like/dislike. If you cant play the whole campaign without playing other stuff (doesnt matter if a few or a lot), then you are grinding. It doesnt matter if the side quests are cool or a boring, it doesnt matter if it takes 10 minutes of 10 hours. It is grinding. A better grind is still grind. " you are not playing the game as it was designed to", wtf, I play the game how I want, if the game is designed in a way that make me unhappy it is not my fault, it's the game's fault. It is also clear that the very same grind that people here say does not exist is the reason why there is a MTX to avoid it. Why would there be a MTX for something that doesnt exist? lol Coming form Ubisoft I am sure that the grind is actually a design choice because if 5% of the players buy the MTX thing, they will make a lot of money.

Its ok to love the game and still agree that you need to grind for a while to complete it. You can even say that sidemissions are great and, as many said, some are even better than the main quest. Just dont say that it isnt a grind or that 'you are playing it wrong'. I played GOW from the begining to the end without touching sidequests, I would be pissed if at some point I had to 'level up before continuing'. I am now playign the sidequests and they are great, but I am very glad I didnt need to play them before, the main mission was my focus and that was what I wanted to play the most.

edit. wait, do missions get locked if you are not in X level or the X level is just a recommended one for you to play it (like Horizon)? I was under the impression it was the first case (which is bad), but read some other answers and it seems like it is the second option (that is fine).

 

[Orochinagis]

Clearing the ???? marks in each area is basically grinding

 

[Unaha-Closp]

I think it's called Empathy - the ability to understand how other people feel. Person A plays AC Odd and does all the things and sails through the game. Person B plays AC Odd and does not do all the things and finds they are 'forced' to do some of the things to continue. Person B says it feels like grinding. Person A, if empathy is available, would then say 'Oh I didn't feel that. Interesting that you did. Let's talk about it. Also, how is your Mum doing these days?'

 

[ShapeGSX]

Only some of them. A lot of them are pointless which is why they are side quest.

There is a balance that the game didnt achieve. Or it just needs to do a better job allowing people to actually play as they please. I mean as an assassin I should be able to kill without being leveled up and spamming specials. It's ridiculous how they went out of their way to stop actual assassinations.

Click to shrink...

But you're not an Assassin. :D

 

[Driggonny]

People consider having to do anything other than the main quest line to proceed as "grinding." The last two AC games were specifically designed so that you need to do side quests at certain points, not because of MTX, but because they wanted to give the player options with what they wanted to do in order to proceed. Some people think they should have obviously given less choice to the player and just changed some of those side quests to main quests.

AC: Origins was pretty weird with it. Without doing the side quest chains to actually fix the villages you made assassinations in, the story felt incomplete imo.

 

[Dr. Mario]

Bosses have specific levels in Xenoblade 2 I thought? The game has other systems to get XP though(as you say, a good thing because the side quests are awful and a massive step back from X). Personally I found the dungeons near the end game to drag like crazy, like one dungeon spans like 3 chapters or something I swear. Consequently I started running past enemies to get through it, but it didn't matter. Due to the overkill system on bosses it meant you could get back your xp through taking advantage of the systems smartly.

Click to shrink...

I'm pretty sure the critical bosses scale to (2 levels above) your level. For one because I skipped practically all side quests and could still finish the game, but also because there are moments where the game saves right before the boss with no opportunity to go back if you're underleveld (the arena comes to mind or when the bad guy gets the monado). In the first case I was certain I was fucked due to the aforementioned skipping of side content but found that with some practice and rearranging of my squad, I could still continue on. If more people were screwed in their save, we would have heard more about it.

 

[ckareset]

But you're not an Assassin. :D

Click to shrink...

Obviously not. Im some kind of magician.

 

[Ponchito]

I didn't enjoy this video game and I made a thread about it.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/i-just-can’t-assasins-creed-oddysey.97643/

Of course, this is my opinion and it's OK if you like it.

 

[NDWest14]

The amount of people shocked that they have to level up in an RPG to progress is really crazy.

Maybe Ubi should put a disclaimer among the 15 they already have at bootup that warns you that the game is an RPG and some leveling may be required at times(seriously it takes me 5 minutes to start the f***ing game, 10 to start Far cry 5...I know what an autosave its, I don't need a 60 second splash screen).

If anyone is that upset they can basically turn off level scaling since last months patch or turn the game to easy. Achivements and Trophies aren't tied to difficulty

 

[hydro94530]

By doing that, aren't you doing literally all of the possible grinding?

Click to shrink...

I think this is key. Some people view it as grinding and some people don't, so it's just people's own opinion on the side content and quests. I didn't view it as grinding either and really enjoyed all of it but it's not for everyone.

 

[Philly Cheesesteak]

It's a non issue, Origins was far worse. Only because Jim fatass Sterling read it in here and make video about it, it becomes an "issue", that's about it.

Click to shrink...

Lol Please. I love how people try to handwave it away as if the grind in this game isn't real, yet Ubisoft themselves put in MTX specifically towards increasing how much drachma or XP you get. Hmmm. Another narrative I keep seeing is, "Well those complaining were probably just trying to blast through the game so of course it would be a grind!" I really wish I could have taken a video of me playing this game. Every major mission I came to, I was level gated and was required to do all the side missions surrounding the area just to get to level needed to pass. I didn't rush, I didn't try to bullrush the main story, etc. The game is grindy, point blank. When I literally have to sail to an undiscovered area on the other side of the map, just to find a side quest I haven't done in order to get the XP needed to level up, that's bad game design. I put over 85 hours into this game and not one did I feel overleveled and was still grinding all the way until the end of the game.

 

[Suburban Thug]

Part of the appeal of RPGs is that it's a power fantasy - remember those mobs that wrecked you at the start of your journey? Well after some trials and tribulations you can come back to that area levels later and absolutely stomp. It's satisfying - ACO steals that sense from the player with their level scaling. It's really, really annoying to feel like you aren't making much progress because the enemies magically jump up to your level. Can be highly frustrating when bounty hunters swarm while you're just trying to complete a mission, or you're on a roll unlocking missions but find yourself level gated just when things start to get good - it essentially restricts your freedom of movement.

Really not a fan of the level scaling; definitely a bone-head decision if you ask me!

 

[myco666]

I bet most people complaining about grind ignore the two other main questlines and just concentrate on the family story. I had tons of side missions left when I finished the family story and never once felt that I had to grind. Might help that I don't considering playing unique content grinding.