For news, discussion and more about Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed franchise.
[deleted]
A critique on Assassin's Creed Odyssey(a year and a half later)
// Discussion
I finally decided to do it. Unload all my thoughts about the latest "Assassin's Creed" game in the franchise. This might get downvoted to hell, but I don't care. It's time.
Now, this is my opinion, of course. If you love this game, good for you. Have fun. Don't be a dick about it in the comments. I'll try to do the same here, but I will be blunt when I need to be.
Let me just say first that Assassin's Creed Odyssey does not deserve the title of Assassin's Creed anywhere near it. It spits on what came before in the lore and the way AC stories have been told. It shreds any hope of the franchise coming back to its former glory in the days of the original, the Ezio trilogy, and Black Flag and it squanders everything Origins tried to do and was a poor man's version of its predecessor. That's a broad statement, so let me explain.
From the minute you start Assassin's Creed Odyssey, something is wrong. You pick off a year after Origins's modern day, with Layla finding some broken spear whose importance is given to you by a wave of exposition. You want to find the wielder of the spear and you find two sets of DNA on it, that of a man called Alexios, and a woman named Kassandra. You choose whose DNA you want to follow and you're put into the Animus. But this makes no sense.
Now, I get why the implemented this. They wanted to let you choose your gender, but they shoehorned into the lore and it just didn't work. From what I remember, they didn't do a good job of explaining the importance of the spear. We know it's a Piece of Eden, but from what I can remember, it's never directly stated. The pyramid thing that the Cult uses in the game is seemingly a Piece as well, but is never explained. It feels as though the lore is just making a shitty cameo at best, and has been ignored at worst.
This is compounded by the presence of the Leap of Faith. I understand why this was implemented for gameplay purposes and the team needed the Leap of Faith in the game because all AC games need it. But it was given significance in Origins with Bayek and the son who died before the leap could be passed down. But it just happens to be done by some rando in ancient Greece long before Bayek was even around. It takes away the impact of the Leap of Faith and makes it feel less important to the story and the Assassins.
Speaking of the Assassins, there are none in this game. "Well that's because this took place before they were around" I hear you type. But that's a problem. How is it an Assassin's Creed game if both parts of the title are absent? It's simply not. It's similar in concept, with someone hunting down a bunch of evil people, but that's about it. That's not the most original storyline in the world, which I don't mean as an insult to the franchise. I simply mean that the presence of that alone does not an AC game make. Sure you act like an assassin. But you're not one. At least not a capital "A" Assassin. So why bother? I know why. Ubisoft wanted to make more money, so they slapped "Assassin's Creed" on the title of what was going to be its own IP or a side story game, rather than a main entry.
Having nothing to do with the rest of the franchise takes away a lot of the weight of the story. AC1-Revelations tied the modern day with its history, closely knitting the characters and the plot together. Hell, even AC3's modern day and historical plotlines had some connection with one another. Even when the modern day fell to the wayside, the historical stories had some connection to each other.Not so with Odyssey. It's just there. It adds no impact to anything at all.
Now let's compare it to Origins, shall we? Origins had beautiful graphics, a great story and protagonist, and gave us the origin of the Brotherhood. A more shallow one than most of us would have liked(which is where a sequel instead of this game would have done better), but one nonetheless. Odyssey had...what? An average at best story, a flat protagonist, a less interesting world, and somehow worse graphics, particularly on the faces. They looked almost plastic. Compare it to two other games that came out that year. Red Dead Redemption 2 and Detroit Become Human. Both are stellar looking games that look almost real. You can count the pores in RDR2 and sometimes in DBH as well. Odyssey dips a foot or two into the uncanny valley more than once, giving an almost real look, but not quite.
I won't go into the RPG and game mechanics too much. My main issue is that your choices don't matter. You get one of I think three endings and they are very similar based on only a couple choices about whether to kill a family member or not. The rest don't. You can be nice one day, mean another, and a genocidal maniac the next and none of it matters. You're still the hero, no matter what. The tagline to this game was "It's not any Odyssey, it's your Odyssey". But if my choices don't matter, than how is it my Odyssey? It's not. Remember Halo 5? Remember how people freaked out when they played the campaign and discovered the marketing was a lie? Why didn't this game, whose tagline is just a big a lie as that, get the game reaction?
Odyssey feels like change just for the sake of change, rather than improving on what many would say was becoming stale. People defend this game because it changed the franchise, but not all change is good. Losing an arm is change, but if you tried to claim that it was good, I guarantee you that you would get slapped by an amputee's only arm left. A dramatic comparison? Sure, but it gets my point across.
Sorry for the long post. I haven't covered everything there is to cover, just because that would take far too long, but thanks for reading. I don't want to ruin anyone's enjoyment of this game, but I want to end by saying if you consider yourself an AC fan and this is your favorite, you may want to reconsider what being an AC fan means. If you don't care about the lore or being an Assassin, you're just a follower.
Edit: thanks for the gold.
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
I think it's safe to say that Assassin's Creed as we knew it is dead. Origins was the "in-between" title where they started exploring what the series might be like if it became a full-fledged RPG, and Odyssey is where they fully dove in. Ragnarok or whatever it will be called will likely go in even deeper.
The biggest reason is because the fantasy RPG setting allows Ubisoft to more easily sell DLC, cosmetics, and microtransactions. If the series was grounded in reality or wasn't an RPG, they wouldn't be able to make as much money off that stuff. No RPG level up system, no XP boosters or "time-savers" to avoid the grind. No fantasy setting, no huge catalog of DLC armor, weapons, horses, ships, etc.
The Vikings game will fully embrace Norse mythology and there will be a Valhalla DLC and "Loki's Armor Set" and 200 downloadable custom longship skins and blah blah blah. Then we will see a medieval England game but it will be high fantasy and we'll slay dragons and be able to purchase Lancelot's Lance and shit like that. Oh and Merlin and King Arthur will be in it, but they have their powers because...pieces of Eden!!!!
That's where the series will be until people get completely sick of it...then we might get a return to its roots.
Man people have such short term memories. All I remember is people HATING assassins creeds roots up until Black Flag came out. All my friends had quit playing because of the repetitive, laughable and joke of a combat and follow missions. Sure the assassins themes were good, and that truly is a good critique, but man it scares me hearing people complain about wanting the old style back. Please don't listen to those cries, focus more on good feedback like the story. Need more assassin themes but I actually enjoy the combat as is now. I actually even enjoy the sidequests. I do not want an assassins creed that is beaten in 15 hours. I love black flag because of its themes but i cant even boot the game up because i can't take the combat seriously. Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Seamless, good assassination mechanics and good combat...
Im afraid its as you said.. if they wanted to make money.. they could have just increased its price.. or make a game that wouldnt divide the fanbase like so.. then maybe it would have been bought by as many fans.. wouldnt need these greedy tactics to be applied in the game.. just drops the quality of these games.. i still havent touched this game when compared to other titles when i played them at launch
Point out on the doll where Odyssey touched you.
I would but I don’t have adrenaline :(
Points at wallet.
points to heart it hurt me right here.
After playing and loving origins, I started Odyssey.
Initially, I loved the setting and characters. The game play is super fun. However after playing 7 hours of this game, I absolutely hate it.
It is the worst grind fest I have ever played. You are literally forced into competing side quests! What the hell is that???
I can’t just continue playing the main quest missions Because you need to level up. So I have do the dumb side quests that feel more like a chore than a fun video game.
I gave up on it. Probably will skip the next game in the series if they continue this forced grind bs.
Origins forces you into side questing because of minimum levels of main quests too
I felt that too initially when I played, but once you get to Athens the game starts to flow naturally as you explore. I loved the Athenian politics and every single Socrates mission.
Once you finish up the storyline in Athens, you go exploring around the islands which have some awesome side storylines (Mykonos is my favorite). And then eventually you’ll make your way back to the mainland to Sparta and things will start to heat up.
Also worth mentioning, many of the side quests can provide clues to cultists, nation destabilizing opportunities, and sometimes an epic or legendary weapon/armor/engraving. I would strongly advise you to stick around until you reach Sparta if you haven’t, the game gets really fun from there on.
9,2/10 by IGN, "The best this franchise has ever been".
Like surely they are being paid off right? Even if you hate AC, because the only way someone likes Odyssey is if they dislike Assassin's creed, you can't be rating this game more than games like Spiderman and Uncharted 4. The game is rushed, unpolished, boring, repetitive, uninteresting and blunt. The animations and voice acting are for the most part dreadful, it is way too grindy, it is historically inaccurate, it disrepsects the lore and it's overall a generic rpg with no depth at all. And those are just a few major things, if I listed everything wrong with this game I'd have to be typing for hours.
None of the "gaming media" is worth paying (pun?) attention to any more. Find a few "variety" youtubers who play lots of diverse games and seem to give honest reviews. I'm not recommending anyone specific, but I've found that overall, YT reviewers are more balanced than the big production shills. Even on YT though, you have to watch out for "sponsored" reviews.
So I hate AC I guess. Thanks for letting me know, because I sure didn’t.
Comment deleted by user
you say that like revenge is every protagonist's prime motivation
I disagreed with only one thing you said and that is Odyssey having a flat protagonist. I love Kassandra and really enjoyed playing as her. (never played as the brother).
The way YOU played her was interesting, but she has no core character traits but is still an established character. A YouTuber called Lazzerz goes into more detail on this point, someone else in this thread already linked it
Unfortunately those who share the same feelings, thoughts, and concerns are always silenced.
I agree with everything you said. Check out this video, I think it will speak to you.
I've seen that one actually.
Agree with most of it but the simple answer is. Origins is the origin story assassins, Odyssey is the origin story of the Templars. Spoilers, when you confront aspasia she shows you and asks you to join her in creating an order. I dont quite remember what she said but its something about her wanting everyone ruled under one king who is forcing one order, you can rewatch that scene for more info, this basically sums up the entire series and the fight between templars and assassins, of course even if you kill her she says there are more of them all around the world striving for the same goal ( probably refering to the Order of Ancients or somethin ) I know its a very short scene that takes alot of hours to get to but it explains quite alot in the brief time it takes. I love Odyssey, its setting, historical figures but its no where near Origins and its level of depth until the very end of the game. Do i think it should be labeled assassins creed, Yes i dont mind it being an assassins creed.
Odyssey isn't the origins of Templars lmao. The Order of Ancients is the origins of the templars and they've been around since the pharaoh next to Tutakhamon, way longer than the Cult of Kosmos. Someone needs to pay more atention to the game.
She phrased it in terms of "Bringing order to the world, in the form of a Philosopher King".
I enjoy playing it and I think it's a fine game, but Odyssey isn't Assassin's Creed.
I can let Origins slide because at least at has elements like the hidden blade, the formation of the creed, and the leap of faith being important. Odyssey doesn't have any of that.
If Ubisoft wants to make historical fiction without assassins and templars that's fine, just stop pretending it's still Assassin's Creed.
I'll give you props for atleast not stating the obvious that it isnt like games before Origins. That was kinda the point.
But it is an Assassins Creed game, if for any reason, the developers and owners of the IP say it is. And, it was well recieved and sold very well. Everyone I've recommended the game to has enjoyed it. What do they have in common? They arent diehard fans of the franchise. Theyve played most games but got bored of the AC formula. Alot of people got bored of it.
Luckily your post targets how Odyssey deviates from Origins. Sadly to hear you didn't enjoy it. It's fairly evident the game has become divisive amongst the more hardcore fans if this sub is any indication, but I still think it sits as a typically well-received AAA game by most casual fans of the franchise. Ubisoft is not ignorant of the criticism its recieved, but they also know which demographic is proportionately paying their bills lol. It's a safe bet the next game will probably focus on the best recieved parts of Origins and Odyssey and drop some things people hated in both, and add some new things the devs think are fun and cool features. No doubt the new things will in themselves become hot debate topics on this sub, and the wheel of history will turn evermore.
Everything you said was right
Ubisoft don't change the game players = look it's the same copy paste game ubisoftis lazy as fuck
Ubisoft change the game = it's not the same game anymore ubisoft sucks and want money so they changed it, old games are better new games are boring ubisoft can't win.
And bayek didn't invented leap of faith
This is exactly what many people feel. And it's precisely because it was done by the B-team. The team that takes over from the vision that the main development team had (Origins & Black Flag) and tries to "improve" on it. They didn't do well as you can tell by what they did with Syndicate.
I won't speak to the story, apart from the fact that I found it a little uninteresting. Having the choice between two protagonists was a mistake, imo. Because the story was the same regardless of your choice, it didn't feel personal, or even intriguing. Kassandra had great voice acting, but Alexios fell flat and I couldn't stand any time he talked. On choices though.. none of them mattered, in the end, and they tried too hard to make it like other RPGs.
I will say that Odyssey and Origins are about on par with graphics and visuals. Egypt at times got a little bland, when there were at least 4 zones with nothing but desert and no POIs. Odyssey is absolutely beautiful though, with open seas, dense islands and forests, and it was so colorful.
ok 👍
I'm actually tired of this "this is not AC" bullshit. Cassandra is not an assasin? How come there is a statue of a chinese assasin in AC 2 who lived long before Bayek and Amunet? There's no hidden blade? But first dlc actually IS about hidden blade lmao. There are tons of answers about Isu, who were introduced in the same AC2. Do you even follow the lore?
What answers? Kassandra isn't an Assassin. By definition she can't be. I never said anything about the Hidden Blade, either.
Well, your definitions and the game lore have really nothing to do in common.