Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The ending of the main game was pretty damn bad. You spend the entire game playing as Bayak only for the story to be hijacked at the last minute by Aya... I liked Aya and all but it felt dirty. The ending was all about Aya and had nothing to do with Bayak. Feelsbadman. :|
I'll likely 100% The Hidden Ones(Or close to it) as it should only take a few hours then play the last DLC and call it a day.
Enjoyable game. Story was okay, ending was... bad. I don't like the switcheroo ending, felt very cheap.
I would have minded the Aya sections a lot less if they'd actually let me
* see what skills and modifiers she has, and
* switch out her gear
I mean, by that time, Bayek can easily be Egypt's most notorious arms dealer with a whole stash of highly effective weapons and shields. You'd think he'd do the decent thing and offer to share with his wife so that she has a better chance of survival.
The game was initially planned to have Bayek killed and then you play as Aya for the rest of the game. Ubisoft execs didn't like female protagonists, so much of the 1st and final act were changed at the last minute, hence the weird pacing / uninterrupted missions that teleport you around and playing as Aya 'temporarily.'
Jesus..... what happened to those execs after Origins ? The next games could be played as females, and a lot of the mercs and guard NPC's in Odyssey were chicks. Similarly, half of the vikings in Valhalla were plaid wearing bull ♥♥♥♥♥ with mohawks. Off-putting, to say the least. Origins did it 95% right.
in games like these.
Ghost of tsushima: 6 years
Red dead 2: 8 years
Breath of the wild: 5 years.
Ass creed origins was released 2017. by 2020 we had it's 2 sequels.
So while it is unclear how long exactly ubisoft developed those game it is obvious it's much much less time then the other companies used.
All of those other game where also made by very experienced people who know their craft. So it's not that ubisoft is just more experienced.
Ubisoft only cares for money. this is a simple fact. If they can sell a half finished product they will release half finished products. I am not blindly hating on ubisoft it is plain obvious to see.
As long as people will buy the mediocre games from ubisoft they will continue to release mediocre games.
But after have done a full play of Origins and Odyssey, Odyssey is better on most points. I played both with gamepass, will buy odyssey, hardly ever Origins. So at end I totally disagree, I don't know how they did to make Odyssey in a so short time, but:
- No way Odyssey feels rushed.
- Odyssey writing is better, despite offering a lot more content than Origin.
- Odyssey combats have more depth, and a lot higher diversity.
- Odyssey main story a lot less basic, and on multiple threads.
- Odyssey has a lot more diversity of tones, and has plenty side quest quite better managed and written than in Origins.
- Odyssey world has a much higher density of stuff to do, and Origins largely abuses of too long travels.
- Odyssey character building is deeper.
- Odyssey equipment is improved compared to Origins, with many armor items to manage instead of one generic armor in Origins.
- Mercenary system of Origins is pathetic basic and non significant compared to Odyssey system (even if I can admit the Odyssey system is ok not really great).
- Ship & Sea in Odyssey is much better than what includes Origins.
- Many more point where Odyssey are clearly better than Origins.
I am sorry but you are comparing two games with the same problems. And you say Odyssey is not rushed cause it is better as Origins. Both games are absolutly mediocre. Combat in both games is a joke compared to well refined games like ghost of tsushima.
I agree that the writing is not bad and there is interesting stuff in the game. The problem is. There are very talented Game devs working for Ubisoft. But they get inpossible deadlines from the Suits. Ubisoft does not aim for perfection. Other companies take many years to refine their games. Ubisoft release games that have as many bugs as the milky way has starts. Cause people still buy it. Sucker punch tried to make a samurai epos and they fkn delivered. Ubisoft just tries to make money. It's the sad truth about the companie.
Their games are not bad. But they aren't good either. And they never will be good as long as they can make more money with inferior products. The whole working ethos of ubisoft is to despise by all gamers.
Stop with generalities, they make no sense.
I just compare the game to well refined games and i see the mediocrity in it. No one said you can't enjoy it.
Opinions can differ. Everyone likes different stuff. I like games that have awesome combat. Ghost of tsushima was great it was one of the few open world games i completed entirely cause the gameplay was just insanely satisfying. I am sorry but odyssey gameplay is amateurish compared to ghost of tsushima.
But there's still matter of arguing because it's not pure subjectivity and personal preferences isn't meaning better, most people can make a difference between both.
I have a problem with the examples of "well refined games" that you quoted:
- RD2: It's not appealing me, but also it's not a RPG. It could be a detail for you. But for me it's not. The core point is it saves costs on major aspect as character building, and enemy scaling in a very open world context. So ok but it's far to be the best comparison point with Odyssey. It's because open world RPG is generating more constraints.
- Zelda Breath of the wild: I have a different problem with it, not on PC, hence I can't argue with you on this base.
- Ghost of tsushima: Never heard of it and after a check, exclusive release not on PC, again I can't argue with you on this base.
So I wonder, no PC Open World RPG that are well refined games? And you really think it means nothing that you cannot provide an example?
Three points:
- RPG genre is no way a minor aspect because RPG (full fledged, not even open world) is the most difficult genre to make.
- Second major aspect is wide open world is a very specific sub genre with very special constraints.
- Open World RPG is extra difficult to do because it leads to many specific problems from world filling to enemy scaling.
So if Odyssey is a that bad Open World RPG, you can't have some examples well refined and released on PC?
If you want answer, TW3, FO3&4, Skyrim, Oblivion, FNV, some more, I fully disagree and have arguments.
So, at least for PC games, and open world RPG, Odyssey is very far from being bad, or even, it is very far from not be good.
I am talking about the refinment of the game. What genre it is is absolutly irrelevant. I choosed those 3 games cause they are similar in scope. So there should be a somewhat similar development cycle yet all those example took at least double the development time.
I also never said they make bad games. I said they make mediocre game. And the reason for that is that ubisoft does not even try to aim at the heights other games do. They are perfectly fine with sitting on more or less good reviews and beeing famous for broken releases and to spawn an insane amount of memes.
Ubisoft is happy with making money. You need at least some quality to sell a product. But ubisoft is not trying to make a "awesome" game. Sucker punch wanted to make an incredible samurai game. Rockstar took 8 years to put incredible amounts of detail into the game to make it a western epos and they did.
The thing i hate about ubisoft is that they have a huge fkn company with thousands of employes. They got the money and the manpower to do incredible games. But they choose not to. Cause making money is enough. They do not aim at perfection and i hate them for exactly that.
For the two other console games that seem be totally big open world RPG, the comparison with Odyssey is relevant, I can't comment, I don't play console only games, and anyway I avoid gamepad as much than possible. Still at end, I can't argue on those two examples. But then why you cvan't give even one example of PC open world RPG that is refined in your opinion? Makes no sense if Odyssey is that bad.
A comment on mediocre games, I stop play quickly mediocre games, they are boring and don't worht the time lost, you should try do the same. Clearly with 150H played with Odyssey, it didn't bored me and couldn't be a mediocre game for me. it was mediocre for you ok, but don't pretend it is mediocre for any player, nope your preference are no reference.
A comment on broken games, perhaps at release they was, but no, neither Origins or Odyssey are now broken games, facepalm.
Clearly you are in a cursader against Ubi, and can't have open eyes and open mind on each of their games independently, it blinds you.
Still waiting any single PC open world RPG you pretend as a refined game, sigh, as if any game is perfect and doesn't have flaws.
It is. That's the problem. It costs additional money to further refine a game. But ubisoft knows they would need to put in a lot more money to only regain a little more money in the outcome. The perfectionist who wants to make a game as good as possible will put extra money in the product to make it as good as possible.
But there are also companies like ubisoft who stop refinment as soon as it is not beneficial in terms of money making. That is my whole complain you kinda refuse to see.
Just cause the game does not bore you and that you enjoy it does not debunk my point. I also played though origins. It was servicable. But i can see the absolut difference in quality to other games. And the question is if we "Gamer" should support that.
My whole point is that ubisoft could do much better games but they will only make better games if they don'tget away with what they do know. It's more a philosophical approach.
They do servicable games. But they could do more. They only will do more if people demand it. As long as people are happy with mediacre stuff they will not change though.
Facts is what games are, not what I/you imagine of intentions of dev/publishers.
Facts are my plays of Odyssey and multiple open world RPG, it proves me Odyssey is quite refined compared to other games in same genre, with only very few a bit more refined overall, and knowing that NO game is fully refined, and ANY game has plenty flaws and even more points weaker/less strong than many other games.
EDIT:
Argue that there's 3 open world that a fully refined among 30 open world games is a non sense black and white vision with no reality base. The idea there's well refined games and brutally non well refined games makes no sense or it's just game you liked and those you didn't like but that's total subjectivity.
Dude you literaly summed up the quintessence of money hungry companies ^^. Yes for those companies money is as important with the exclusion of rockstar maybe. They got all the money in the world cause of GTA but they also use this to create games like RED dead 2 which took fkn 8 years to refine. Do you even know how much money they lost cause of this.
Bethesda is famously known for starting the whole mtx crap. They are also known for lying to customers as well as letting other people fix their games. (Modding community) Which they even tried to monetize LMAO.
Activision totaly shifted blizzard. Many credible people left the companie and just recently they spoke out openly how activision put pressure on blizzard shift production habits. It is also famoulsy known that blizzard lost all it's charme due to this.
EA is famously known for buying small companies just to kill them off. Westwood, Vicarious games are just some of them.
you basicly compare pest with cholera and now argue that pest is not as bad since cholera is also bad.
Sucker Punch, Santa monica games, Naughty dog, From software are examples for companies who are workign with heart on their games. There is no mtx madness and they try to produce serious quality and they are known for delaying releases if they feel a game is not (perfect). And that is important cause ubisoft release half broken games. And this is not my impression it is well known. Those are facts. Jesus christ just look at what state they released unity back in the day^^. Holy moly that was a disaster this game never had a chance to shine.