Is this game worth $70 in your opinion?

[Bad Brad]

Did you think it was worth it?

[Red]

it's worth around 60/70. Personal Gripes aside its a decent to good game in my opinion. Just hate the fog.

[Mr.Arby]

no, 5-10$ max

[Carne Padre]

Personally, I been playing it for a while now. I like it, its not the greatest game out there. I think its an okay AC game compared to Valhalla and Odyssey. There are more stealth options and it feels like stealth is viable in this game unlike the others. I enjoy the game a lot Naoe is enjoyable.

I would give it like an alright, is it worth 70? eh.... probably not, i would say maybe 40-50? or wait for a sale. Its fun but its just alright.

[Sir Noob Wulf]

Originally posted by Bad Brad:

Did you think it was worth it?

No.

[[{******---Dead4Life---******}]]

Yes it is worth the full price or 20% off if you on Ubis store with 100 coins.
It was better when pre-ordered since they threw in the expansion pass (about 10 - 15 hrs more) in for free.
At this point I suggest for you to wait, and get the game plus DLC bundle with some discount. But hey up to you.

[marley = killa]

iT$ $o cooL

[Dakota]

worth 40-50 imo, too many game-breaking bugs even on the highest-end systems (can be fixed by restarting but damn frustrating)

[Dodece]

Originally posted by Ele:

This game is worth $4.99 and that's what I'm going to pay for it.

Notices that Valhalla still goes on sale for fifteen dollars. So you're going to probably wait for seven or eight years. Seems kind of counterproductive in my opinion given how games age. By the time you get the game it wont look half as good as it does now.

[Plaxus]

Honestly, no... I paid for Ubisoft+ to get it, cancelled it in 7 days. I got about 35 hours in and was bored to tears.

It has the exact some crap problem every Ubisoft game has had for a while- wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle. It takes you mere hours to see all the actual gameplay it has to offer.

By the time you raid your 5th castle or do your 10th side question, you've done it all.

Don't like half the characters, namely the stupid 21st century american idealist moral busy bodies in my 1500s feudal japan sim. The level scaling system and upgrades feel pointless and broken-everything levels with you while you never feel more engaged. SO you either plow through dudes laughably or everyone one hits you -somehow forced in to hopefully(?) gate the game.
You can't really engage with the world like and RPG or Sim, despite scattering in sprinkles of that taste... idk man. A lot like StarWars Outlaws or not getting off the boats in SKull And Bones...everything is look-but don't touch. Everything is just very superficial surface level but you wish you could immerse more. You can't even shoot a deer or dec a house in accessories

Story kinda sucks too... like it tries to make you care, but it's just not there.. you're just A to B chasing. Too many side stories you can wreck by doing early accidentally, and the character will react to things when you haven't even started it yet or have context.. it's just bad design story board wise.

It might be worth it if you turn off your brain and into this scope of content. At $30 to the right person...maybe
$70 is a damn joke!

[Letterit]

Evaluate price on quality makes no sense, it's a matter of budget/amount of content/expected amount of sells.

I'm not fan of Shadows, but still hasn't trash it yet, and the price is mostly cheap, but it shows Ubisoft on a wrong track, making too big games.

[robilar5500]

No game is worth $70.

But this game is definitely worth playing.

[uwuaru]

ffxvi is only $50 so automatically the answer is no

[AdahnGorion]

It is worth whatever you are willing to pay, the point being that it is subjective.

Across the globe we see regional pricing for this. Ie. It is 42 euro in China and 30% of sales are there.

If you are very interested, played other new ac games and can easily afford it, then why not?

I am biased against it, but it is you whom needs to make up your decisions based on bias and situation

[Skylers Meth]

Originally posted by Plaxus:

Honestly, no... I paid for Ubisoft+ to get it, cancelled it in 7 days. I got about 35 hours in and was bored to tears.

It has the exact some crap problem every Ubisoft game has had for a while- wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle. It takes you mere hours to see all the actual gameplay it has to offer.

By the time you raid your 5th castle or do your 10th side question, you've done it all.

I could say the same thing about most of the titles in your most played list. There's a gameplay loop that landscape, building design and layout changes each with encounter. That you're doing the same sorts of things over and over is present in every game, At nearly 70 hours i've experienced hundreds of variations of enemy areas with thousands of opportunities and choices for stealth and approach and even more for just barging in. Yet, somehow early ubisoft stealth titles like Splinter Cell are thought of very highly, despite being linear as hell.

[Plaxus]

Originally posted by Skylers Meth:

Originally posted by Plaxus:

Honestly, no... I paid for Ubisoft+ to get it, cancelled it in 7 days. I got about 35 hours in and was bored to tears.

It has the exact some crap problem every Ubisoft game has had for a while- wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle. It takes you mere hours to see all the actual gameplay it has to offer.

By the time you raid your 5th castle or do your 10th side question, you've done it all.

I could say the same thing about most of the titles in your most played list. There's a gameplay loop that landscape, building design and layout changes each with encounter. That you're doing the same sorts of things over and over is present in every game, At nearly 70 hours i've experienced hundreds of variations of enemy areas with thousands of opportunities and choices for stealth and approach and even more for just barging in. Yet, somehow early ubisoft stealth titles like Splinter Cell are thought of very highly, despite being linear as hell.

No, you really can't if not not completely disingenuous lol
Yeah.. that's because Splinter Cell is focused with opportunity engagement sandbox. AC is absolutely not.

The gameplay loop of AC is literally hitting buttons as enemies glow colors to perform an animation, and abusing a predictable stealth system that gets abused with time.

Like are you going to compare Dark Souls, with its character builds, dodging, weapon and armor choice, spells, tanking hits or level of aggression to AC combat? There is a reason one of these gets played thousands of hours and dozens of play-through over the years, and one is picked up and forgotten when the next comes out. - They're basically the same, right? Walking through Anor London feels no different with player experience, intents, or builds, right?

There is zero emergent or agency based gameplay in AC- you do the prompt, that's what you can do... which that's fine, there is nothing wrong with that, some people like that.. some people like more engagement. I'm not going to pretend it isn't shallow though