So Ubisoft will now be making Witcher 3 clones from now on?

[Kleerex]

Because a viking berserker surely screams "stealth", doesn't it?

The original game that was released back in 2007 was Hitman set in medieval times. Origins was the last game that somewhat passed as an AC game, Odyssey is a generic open-world Witcher 3 clone and so is Valhalla.

[Perplex]

Yes.

[Seven]

Like most AAA publishers, they make whatever they think will sell, preferably with the lowest effort possible. Witcher 3 showed there was a market for this type of game, not that W3 was necessarily the first of its kind, and it fits well into Ubisofts general approach to games. Make a big open map. Stick in some radio towers to climb, enemy camps to kill, resources caches to find, animals to hunt, lots and lots of generic bad guys to kill, and some craftng on top of that, then slap on some writing of sufficient quality to not get laughed at and you're done. It's not unique to Ubisoft, but they have certainly perfected their formula and stuck to it.

It's not so much that Ubisoft are cloning W3 as they are cloning their own games, then adapting it slightly. Origins was admittely a bit different from what they had done previously, and clearly "inspired" by W3, as it wasn't just Far Cry: Ancient Egypt, but the step from Origins to Odyssey is significantly smaller, and although I haven't seen much of Valhalla, I suspect it will be to Odyssey what Odyssey was to Origins. Some changed gameplay, a different skin on top of it, but essentially the same game with a new look. You'll be climbing radio towers, clearing enemy camps and collecting crafting resources as per usual.

Though I suppose I could be wrong. Some cautious optimism doesn't hurt, but I'm not holding my breath as Ubisoft has yet to surprise me.

[kalashnjkov21]

Witcher 3 has scabbard for almost every sword and these clones dont have any sword scabbard.

[Kleerex]

I guess, the issue isn't that they are taking some elements from other games, but rather that they are using one name for vastly different games for marketing purposes. If Valhalla wasn't part of AC franchise, it would've given greater creative freedom to developers and allowed them to come up with other gameplay elements and ideas that would make the game stand out more.

In the past creative developers were highly sought after and acquired by big publishers, but now they are only interested in established IPs, which is the reason why publishers are buying other publishers these days. They don't care who makes those games anymore, and they attach pretty much every game to one of the franchises. Take Bethesda, for example. Regardless of what game they put out, each one of them in the series is so different that it should've been a separate title, but it's still Doom or Wolfenstein or some other known franchise, and you can't be sure what you're going to get when you buy one of those games, which leads to disappointment for many because they get something different than what they expected. Ubisoft is less extreme compared to Bethesda, but point still stands - If it's a 3rd person game, it's always AC, if it's an FPS, it's always Far Cry.

They don't even use numbers in game titles anymore for obvious reasons.

Indie developers are now the ones pushing medium limits and experimenting and innovating, but their creations lack polish. It's a bad time to be a gamer in this day and age, I'd say.

[Go0lden_Archer]

Origins already was a witcher 3 clone. At least in odyssey they added mercs, a similar to shadow of mordor/war nemesis mechanic

[Punished Rusty Shackleford]

Yes.

[melon]

I doubt we’ll be seeing any classic assassins creed games ever again. I think most people are fine with that.

[😎Astran😾]

I love me more Ubi's Witcher clones - especially considering they are much more fun than the outdated Witcher itself.

[M4rhun]

Yes, but in ♥♥♥♥♥♥ versions indeed.

[Raider Deci]

Originally posted by melon:

I doubt we’ll be seeing any classic assassins creed games ever again. I think most people are fine with that.

Personally I dont mind that they expanding the worlds in the way they have done.

[Darzai]

Bad witcher 3 clones yes. Shallow story, shallow world neatly divided to be unlocked through checklists that 90% of players never complete, because it is too repetitive. The ridiculous amount of fetch quests don't help with this either.

These games mainly sell because of the franchise name and flashy graphics, even though it has nothing to do with assassins anymore. Assassin's Creed has become the most ridiculously named AAA franchise imo. It could've been called Far Cry Odyssey.

[Kindled_Flame]

Originally posted by Kleerex:

Because a viking berserker surely screams "stealth", doesn't it?

The original game that was released back in 2007 was Hitman set in medieval times. Origins was the last game that somewhat passed as an AC game, Odyssey is a generic open-world Witcher 3 clone and so is Valhalla.

"Odyssey is a generic open-world Witcher 3 clone and so is Valhalla."

Yet you still bought it!/smh

[Kleerex]

Originally posted by colenb1511:

"Odyssey is a generic open-world Witcher 3 clone and so is Valhalla."

Yet you still bought it!/smh

I didn't buy Valhalla for the aforementioned reason, likely will skip all the subsequent games as well. And you don't seem to have even Odyssey, so what are you even doing here?

[Kindled_Flame]

Originally posted by Kleerex:

Originally posted by colenb1511:

"Odyssey is a generic open-world Witcher 3 clone and so is Valhalla."

Yet you still bought it!/smh

I didn't buy Valhalla for the aforementioned reason, likely will skip all the subsequent games as well. And you don't seem to have even Odyssey, so what are you even doing here?

I meant you bought Odyssey, that's what just said

[Jir Soey]

Funny you should mention stealth because Vikings were actually known for their cunning and ambush tactics.