this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
62 points (88.8% liked)
Asklemmy
42480 readers
1929 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get the sentiment, even though I wasn't too much a fan of the original series. That said, while sales don't equal quality, nor does sticking to the same thing. Changing style, direction or genre doesn't equal lack of quality. I was quite a fan of Origins and Oddysey.
The real risk is losing the original fanbase, which did happen quite a bit, probably.
Valhalla is oozing with personality. It’s freakin’ huge, beating out the amount of content in Odyssey. It’s not all great content, but it isn’t terrible. Even the DLC is huge.
Exactly, it's awesome.
Both are terrible
You're completely in your right to think that. I'm also glad there's an audience that thinks otherwise.
But is low quality, the acting got worse, the missions are more repetitive, the way the scenes are framed it's bad, there's barely motion capture scenes, now compare it with the scenes in AC3 or even brotherhood... Those look like high quality TV shows scenes.
I prefer good gameplay are fun cutscenes. Both add value, but I preferred the newer games over the old ones, in terms of gameplay.
This doesn't mean either of us is wrong or right, simply that it's okay to have different preferences.
I remember all of them and honestly, actually no. Of the modern games, only in Odyssey was the acting a bit bad in that people would always do the same repetitive arm movements (lift arm, raise, even when angry, or sad, or it was exaggerated).
You probably misremember the missions being repetitive. I dare you to play AC1, that one was real repetitive compared to literally everything after.
You're comparing an old 2007 (cutting edge for its time) game with a mediocre modern RPG. Keep that in mind. AC1 IS repetitive but is AC at it's purest form. The parkour is amazing and it's so cool to go back to a game without restrictions of movement, like real parkour.
And the cut scenes part I was obviously talking about other games beyond 1. Is not fair to give that game crap, is the OG ffs. Still, the missions, social stealth and assassinations plus perfect parkour put it over the over bloated RPGs of now.
Sure, it might be AC1 in its "purest" form, but that is because it's just the first game, which sets the tone. I give it credit for doing that, but that's it. I do recall that at the time it was received relatively lackluster.
Exchange Odyssey with 1, correct for what the consoles and computers were capable for at the time, and you might say the same, that it would've been AC in its purest form, and nowadays it's all underbloated and too poor, not rich in detail.
Personally, I found the parkour in the first few games very boring. It certainly did have restrictions of movement. You could not climb outside city walls, or stones, or trees. May I remind you that games from III (when Desmond died) and on, actually started in that?
I fear your memory might be selective, but no one is holding you back from playing the older games. I personally prefer the newer ones as they actually do have deeper stories.
So, yes: I do give the first game crap, because it is not accessible for handicapped people (eg. a lack of good subtitles), and it was very glitchy (you could only attack the Lionheart when you pushed him through the corridor, when this was not intended gameplay). And all that, while it should have been accessible and less glitchy and repetitive, even compared to other games at the time.
You simply have a rosy coloured view of the past, I'm afraid; try looking more rosy towards the future, be thankful, and there may be less reason for chagrin. Have a good evening.
Again, there's several YouTube videos proving otherwise. You can manual jump everywhere in that game. Odyssey and origins DON'T. Shit, odyssey erased the fall damage completely, you're factually wrong.
Of course you CAN'T climb everywhere, that's how real climbers work irl, on odyssey you can climb flat surfaces which is dumb and you don't have side projections or vaulting. AC1, the old ass game you're ridiculing does. Rose tinted my nutsack.
I liked ‘em both.