So... Assassin's Creed: Origins is awful.
- Thread starter SofNascimento
- Start date
I've played every assassin's Creed game and they all sucked imo, origins I had hope but that was even more of a waste of time.
Odyssey however? Made me a believer.
But yeah Origins is bad even though it's the most similiar to Odyssey out of all of them.
Odyssey however? Made me a believer.
But yeah Origins is bad even though it's the most similiar to Odyssey out of all of them.
I'm curious: what was it about Odyssey that made you a believer? Honest question, as I've played and enjoyed them all except Odyssey, which I found bloated beyond comprehension, so it's interesting to hear the exact opposite view.
Yeah, I'm wondering this too. I heard from a lot of people that Origins is a better game cause it's less bloated than Odyssey
All right, I also just finished Origins.
The story actually does get relatively interesting but unfortunately near the fucking end of the game...so whatever, it was servicable overall.
However this game barely managed to pass my maximum bloat tolerance and I am MASSIVELY happy I did not get Odyssey after looking at map of that, just fucking ridiculous. I legit do not comprehend people who do all the "?" and not feel dead inside.
A solid 7/10 game, it was not awful and I genuinely enjoyed exploring Egypt at my own pace (the landmarks and alike).
The story actually does get relatively interesting but unfortunately near the fucking end of the game...so whatever, it was servicable overall.
However this game barely managed to pass my maximum bloat tolerance and I am MASSIVELY happy I did not get Odyssey after looking at map of that, just fucking ridiculous. I legit do not comprehend people who do all the "?" and not feel dead inside.
A solid 7/10 game, it was not awful and I genuinely enjoyed exploring Egypt at my own pace (the landmarks and alike).
I judged the series by my previous playing three different entries. This users post just shows that my complaints with the earlier games are still valid and I probably don't need to waste my money or time on any more Assassins Creed games.
Ya that was a very fun walking the walk video to do. there was more going on in that game at times than met the eye for sure.
OP
OP
So, after some 50 hours and 81% of completion, I finish the game, some additional thoughts:
I think the game can be plesanty at times, the word is beautfil and jus roaming it can give a sense of confort if you will. But in terms of intelectual game design it's a graveyard, with only the bow gameplay and how it mix in hand-to-hand combat feeling something particularly exciting.
It's a game with no pacing, you just sort of play it doing stuff, one fect quest after the other, in which the main quests are just like any of those fetch quests, the only difference is that isnted of a ? you have a !. So even if you choose ignore all those ?, you can't really. Not to mention the game is extremely punishing to underlevel characters, so you will have to do some of those ?.
The story and characters were particularly disappointing, being intruced and thrown away almost without care. Caesar is probably the worse historical character I've ever seen in an AC game. They are a reflection of the game, just random acts that don't feel really connected to one another.
Would I still call it awful? I don't know. There is something that make it feels unfair. The game is so massive, so beautiful, so well crafted in term of its world that surely it deserves some praise, and it has its moments. On the other hand, it's has no campaign structure, no story, virtually no meaningful quests, no pacing and nothing beyond a very simple gameplay that feels underdeveloped. In other words, AC Origins is a game about brute force with barely any creativity, and that's awful.
I think the game can be plesanty at times, the word is beautfil and jus roaming it can give a sense of confort if you will. But in terms of intelectual game design it's a graveyard, with only the bow gameplay and how it mix in hand-to-hand combat feeling something particularly exciting.
It's a game with no pacing, you just sort of play it doing stuff, one fect quest after the other, in which the main quests are just like any of those fetch quests, the only difference is that isnted of a ? you have a !. So even if you choose ignore all those ?, you can't really. Not to mention the game is extremely punishing to underlevel characters, so you will have to do some of those ?.
The story and characters were particularly disappointing, being intruced and thrown away almost without care. Caesar is probably the worse historical character I've ever seen in an AC game. They are a reflection of the game, just random acts that don't feel really connected to one another.
Would I still call it awful? I don't know. There is something that make it feels unfair. The game is so massive, so beautiful, so well crafted in term of its world that surely it deserves some praise, and it has its moments. On the other hand, it's has no campaign structure, no story, virtually no meaningful quests, no pacing and nothing beyond a very simple gameplay that feels underdeveloped. In other words, AC Origins is a game about brute force with barely any creativity, and that's awful.
I think that if the game wasn't hindered by having to be an "Assassin's Creed" game, it would have faired better. They could've gotten more experimental with gameplay mechanics. It's a shame because the world and setting are absolutely gorgeous and the level of detail is astounding.
OP
OP
I don't know. In many ways it already feels like a new IP, and it was meant to be a soft reboot, so I don't think that was what stopped them. I think it's more because of the way the game is developed, with multiple teams over the world. With a game this big, you want the pieces to be simple and easy to connect with each other, so you can effectivelly work in any part of the game game at any time.
That said, I think this game might have been at its best when it was the most distant from the classic AC formula.
So, if I understood correctly, if you like just exploring, you will love it, if want deeper mechanics and story, you won't.
OP
OP
More or less. There is exploring and there is exploring. In Origins exploring is simply walking around taking the sights, maybe hunting an animal here and slaughtering an entire camp of soldiers you can barely understand why they are your enemies there. There is very little in terms of a more meaningful exploration in unique locals with special rewards. The tombs, for example, are just a sequence of linear corridors. At least the ones that I bother going to.
And I wouldn't call Origins story shallow, it's borderline non-existent. The gameplay yes, it's shallow and simple, but often too clunky to be called pleasant.
So it's more like, if you like just walking around aimlessly in an big and beautiful open world, you will like it. If you expect anything more from a game, you won't. Although I suppose that is a bit off considering the recent AC games popularity.
Yeah its got some good aspects but its ultimately too big for its own good and tries to waste your time at every turn. Would have loved if they spent more time on the story, stopped focusing on making such a humongus world, and didn't try to funnel you into grinding so that you could progress the story that was there.
I thought it was one of the best in the series. Probably in my top 3.
Gobbled this game up, made me a believer in the new direction.
Only issue I had was the level caps.
I hoped we get more Bayek but that's looking like it's not happening with the game's direction, though. His VA did an amazing job.
Gobbled this game up, made me a believer in the new direction.
Only issue I had was the level caps.
I hoped we get more Bayek but that's looking like it's not happening with the game's direction, though. His VA did an amazing job.
Okay so I gave this game another shot during the UPlay free weekend. In the end I was only able to play like an hour and a half before it expired so I never got out of the first town. I'm only posting in this thread because it seems to be the most recently updated one about the game.
I still don't know man.
I tried this game a little bit on a PS4 rental closer to when it original came out and the immediate first impression I got was "Thrift Store Witcher 3". It copied that game's mechanics perfectly and then some, but didn't feel like it had as much personality or flavor. I've gotten really tired of the games that follow this open-world formula -- mostly games from Ubisoft and Sony. Far Cry, Creed, Watch_Dogs, Horizon, Spider-Man, God of War, Days Gone, and others are all open-world games where you collect gear, follow waypoints, get XP, spend skill points on three skill trees, and collect icons all over a map. Most of these games are fine -- they have great graphics and they're executed well enough that there isn't much friction in the gameplay, but they also reach a point where I feel like I'm wasting 30 hours collecting random shit. Y'know that Jim Sterling video he did on Far Cry 5 where he said everything in it was just "fine"? That's how I feel about these games.
I'm not saying I absolutely won't play these games, but they have to have something extra for me to care, and Ideally I don't want them to be reliant on GPS game design. For Witcher 3 that "something extra" was mostly the writing. Horizon had an interesting enough setting and main story for me to at least finish the main quest. Breath of the Wild is this kind of game too but had much more interesting systemic gameplay and felt like it was designed around minimal HUD. Yakuza has its totally unique setting and stories as well. I don't know if that thing is there for these recent AC games.
The writing and characters in Origins seem fine I guess. Egypt is a unique setting at least. I just don't know if I'm pulled in enough to spend dozens of hours clearing the map.
The main reason I originally bounced off Origins though was because I didn't like any of the HUD options. The game really wants you to look at HUD icons in order to find everything in it. Horizon, which came out around the same time, had much more granular HUD options so I could customize it to the point where I could actually focus on the game world the artists spent so much time rendering but also get the information I needed in order to play it. BOTW has enough information in its environments to be playable with minimal HUD. Witcher 3 ultimately depends on waypoints just as much as Origins does, but in that game I turned off all the question mark icons for undiscovered points of interest and still found almost all of them by just exploring and going along with the major quests. Would I be able to do the same in Origins?
Eh. Right now I'm thinking if I can build a new rig this year with a more modern CPU (I played the PC version of Origins maxed out but my CPU bottleneck kept me at like 35fps in the first town) AND it's on sale during the holidays for like $10 I'll think about it.
I still don't know man.
I tried this game a little bit on a PS4 rental closer to when it original came out and the immediate first impression I got was "Thrift Store Witcher 3". It copied that game's mechanics perfectly and then some, but didn't feel like it had as much personality or flavor. I've gotten really tired of the games that follow this open-world formula -- mostly games from Ubisoft and Sony. Far Cry, Creed, Watch_Dogs, Horizon, Spider-Man, God of War, Days Gone, and others are all open-world games where you collect gear, follow waypoints, get XP, spend skill points on three skill trees, and collect icons all over a map. Most of these games are fine -- they have great graphics and they're executed well enough that there isn't much friction in the gameplay, but they also reach a point where I feel like I'm wasting 30 hours collecting random shit. Y'know that Jim Sterling video he did on Far Cry 5 where he said everything in it was just "fine"? That's how I feel about these games.
I'm not saying I absolutely won't play these games, but they have to have something extra for me to care, and Ideally I don't want them to be reliant on GPS game design. For Witcher 3 that "something extra" was mostly the writing. Horizon had an interesting enough setting and main story for me to at least finish the main quest. Breath of the Wild is this kind of game too but had much more interesting systemic gameplay and felt like it was designed around minimal HUD. Yakuza has its totally unique setting and stories as well. I don't know if that thing is there for these recent AC games.
The writing and characters in Origins seem fine I guess. Egypt is a unique setting at least. I just don't know if I'm pulled in enough to spend dozens of hours clearing the map.
The main reason I originally bounced off Origins though was because I didn't like any of the HUD options. The game really wants you to look at HUD icons in order to find everything in it. Horizon, which came out around the same time, had much more granular HUD options so I could customize it to the point where I could actually focus on the game world the artists spent so much time rendering but also get the information I needed in order to play it. BOTW has enough information in its environments to be playable with minimal HUD. Witcher 3 ultimately depends on waypoints just as much as Origins does, but in that game I turned off all the question mark icons for undiscovered points of interest and still found almost all of them by just exploring and going along with the major quests. Would I be able to do the same in Origins?
Eh. Right now I'm thinking if I can build a new rig this year with a more modern CPU (I played the PC version of Origins maxed out but my CPU bottleneck kept me at like 35fps in the first town) AND it's on sale during the holidays for like $10 I'll think about it.
You've clearly never played N AC game before and it sounds like you don't like that sort of game.
which is no problem but posting a whole thread just o say uni don't like it and how could anyome is a bit extra
I detest the final fantasy games '- but I don't go out of my way to post a thread sayijg I think they areawful
what's the point?
which is no problem but posting a whole thread just o say uni don't like it and how could anyome is a bit extra
I detest the final fantasy games '- but I don't go out of my way to post a thread sayijg I think they areawful
what's the point?
imo appeal with these type of games is having something to plug into 30 - 128 minutes and being able to forget about your day, as rote and mindless as it can be
origins/odyssey takes the jack of all trades, master of none approach. story, combat, writing are nothing phenomenal but if you meet it halfway it'll gel together. but if the aforementioned "experience" isn't what you want out of a game then it's just a bunch of busywork
I agree the fetch quests are way overdone in AC: Origins, but I disagree about the combat. I still find it fun 100 hours in, and the seeing and world are pretty damned good
Origins, AKA "Egypt simulator" was one of my best open world experiences.
I generally dislike open world, yet I enjoyed all of my time with Origins (Core Game + All DLC + Museum mode)
The fact that is based on Egypt and its a masterclass example of when AAA actually puts attention to detail in the environment, geography, architecture and NPC routines, is probably impacting my opinion, as Im a bit biased to the sheer effort this kind of project demands.
I "felt" like I was right there, being Bayek (which happens to be one of the best protagonist in years, IMHO)
I generally dislike open world, yet I enjoyed all of my time with Origins (Core Game + All DLC + Museum mode)
The fact that is based on Egypt and its a masterclass example of when AAA actually puts attention to detail in the environment, geography, architecture and NPC routines, is probably impacting my opinion, as Im a bit biased to the sheer effort this kind of project demands.
I "felt" like I was right there, being Bayek (which happens to be one of the best protagonist in years, IMHO)
Breath of the Wild is far better at this purpose. Its moment-to-moment gameplay is way more fun and dynamic.
I think it needed better quests, story, and structure. A janky combat system can be fun to me if it's behind an interesting RPG, unfortunately Origins wasn't interesting and felt a bit like a mess.
It's like a new genre of all the food mashed together, it's the "leftovers" of video games.
It's like a new genre of all the food mashed together, it's the "leftovers" of video games.
OP
OP
I think the writing and characters was my biggest disappointment after creating this thread. I mean, it was already there with how abrupt the game begins and stuff just happen in almost aleatory ways, but I thought it would get better, especially when the heavy hitter characters (mainly Cleopatra and Caesar) showed up.
It gets worse. The writing in the fetch quests and how Bayek interacts with people are pleasant enough. I mentioned somehwere in this thread that I found a couple of very nice quests and it Bayek characterization was the highlight of the game in terms of writing. But this game has no story, it has no sense of pregression between its main quests. Main quests and fetch-quests end up being the same... I mean, just look how Caesar was handled. He shows up out of nowhere and suddenly he is already your enemy and is gone from the game untill you kill him (which was handled terribly).
Also Bayek is one of my favorite characters of this gen and I thought Aya was great too. To each their own!
Yeah I wasn't too big on the combat. I wish Unity didn't stink so much cuz that game has the best combat in the entire series IMO