Assassin's Creed: Odyssey

[Monkey Man]

Dynamic 4k

XB1X's lowest dynamic resolution is higher than the PS4 Pro's highest dynamic resolution.

PS4 Pro max: 2816x1584
PS4 Pro min: 2227x1242
PS4 Pro Average: 2560x1440

XB1X max: 3840x2160 (native 4k)
XB1X min: 2944x1656
XB1X average: 3072x1728

XB1X a 76% increase in output pixels vs PS4 Pro in opening battle, 44% on average.
XB1X has better draw distances and shadows.
XB1X has improved Ambient Occlusion

Framerate is a fairly solid 30fps on both Xbox One X and PS4 Pro, but can be inconsistent.

[Hime]

Everyone seems really positive on this. The best thing about it is that despite being very similar to Origins it sounds like it's very much it's own thing.

[Godzilla]

[NickSCFC]

Sums them up perfectly.

Can't remember the last time I bought a Ubisoft title. Rainbow Six on PS3? Rayman on PS1?

Always thought they were second rate.

[Godzilla]

I'd love to play it as I really liked the last one. But with Red Dead 2 , Spider-Man , Tomb Raider 3 and a few other bits I don't think I'll get it until it's stupidly cheap next year. The forced grind avoiding micro transactions called time savers is disgusting too.

[NickSCFC]

Yeah thanks to Red Dead 2 and Spider-Man hopefully most people will overlook this annualised mundane trash this year.

[Trelliz]

Wow, two xp doublers on top of the base game and season pass, all to make the grind more bearable. It was in the periphery with Origins but as they appear to have more aggressively stunted the progression to promote this I think i'll give this one a miss.

[Vermilion]

Might try and get it next week, though that will depend on how much i spend over the weekend, it's a whopping £47.99 at Argos, but that's the only place in town here which sells it.

[Ploiper]

im just gunna get it for Christmas, that way I don't have to spend monies on it. i'll enjoy it though once I eventually get round to playing it

[Hime]

Wow, two xp doublers on top of the base game and season pass, all to make the grind more bearable. It was in the periphery with Origins but as they appear to have more aggressively stunted the progression to promote this I think i'll give this one a miss.

I know this stuff gets to you mate but everyone had said how fun the game is. The grind was a complete non issue in Origins and I'll bet it's the same here and Sterling is going for another fight the man YouTube title.

[jawafour]

I know this stuff gets to you mate but everyone had said how fun the game is. The grind was a complete non issue in Origins and I'll bet it's the same here and Sterling is going for another fight the man YouTube title.

I think Sterling is right to call out cases of increasing game expense, particularly when it involves paying to skip playing. The vast majority of gaming news media outlets - such as Eurogamer - seem in thrall to the publishers and I think this is why Sterling goes a little over-the-top; purely to try and shine some light on the issues.

Generally - generally - this has been perceived as being a decent game with lots to do... but I would be a little uncomfortable if Ubisoft's approach to DLC (is paying to increase XP faster / skip gameplay elements really DLC?) was waved by without comment. It's good to have someone like Sterling to rant and rave about it!

[Peter Crisp]

Sums them up perfectly.

Can't remember the last time I bought a Ubisoft title. Rainbow Six on PS3? Rayman on PS1?

Always thought they were second rate.

I normally like Jim's stuff but I really don't agree with him here.
Sure there's a lot of micro transactions but you're never forced into buying them and I never once felt the need to even consider them when playing Origins and I doubt I will when playing this. There's more than enough XP available by playing the game to get everything worth having and the base game is so vast that I don't think I felt ripped off by not investing in the DLC.

I feel I'd be more than happy to just buy the base game and play it for the ages it will take me.

[Hime]

I know this stuff gets to you mate but everyone had said how fun the game is. The grind was a complete non issue in Origins and I'll bet it's the same here and Sterling is going for another fight the man YouTube title.

I think Sterling is right to call out cases of increasing game expense, particularly when it involves paying to skip playing. The vast majority of gaming news media outlets - such as Eurogamer - seem in thrall to the publishers and I think this is why Sterling goes a little over-the-top; purely to try and shine some light on the issues.

Generally - generally - this has been perceived as being a decent game with lots to do... but I would be a little uncomfortable if Ubisoft's approach to DLC (is paying to increase XP faster / skip gameplay elements really DLC?) was waved by without comment. It's good to have someone like Sterling to rant and rave about it!

I would agree of this stuff was necessary but it's entirely optional. If the grinding was massively excessive then fair enough but it's barely even a thing in AC, it's just a system to make numbers get higher so that you feel better.

[jawafour]

I would agree of this stuff was necessary but it's entirely optional. If the grinding was massively excessive then fair enough but it's barely even a thing in AC, it's just a system to make numbers get higher so that you feel better.

I do think it odd that a publisher gives options to pay money to not play the game... fair enough, it's only an option... but I wonder if this game has been balanced to make that option attractive? Sterling thinks so and now Polygon does, too. The problem apparently - and I say "apparently" because I haven't played it - comes to the forefront as you progress further into the game.

As I said, this does seem to be a good game - the scale and visuals are superb! - but I see it as a good thing when someone challenges the additional monetary expense for players; particulalry in this case where it appears tha the game design may drive you down that route.

[Peter Crisp]

All leveling up super fast does is give you the ability to kill the higher level enemies which appear as the story progresses so doing so just ruins the game anyway as you miss most of the content.
I played Origins for weeks and didn't find the grind a problem as the game was fun and looked bloody amazing. Maybe I'm just farming more XP than average though as I tend to do a lot of the side quests and don't feel the need to just rush through the main plot as fast as I can.

[Hime]

I would agree of this stuff was necessary but it's entirely optional. If the grinding was massively excessive then fair enough but it's barely even a thing in AC, it's just a system to make numbers get higher so that you feel better.

I do think it odd that a publisher gives options to pay money to not play the game... fair enough, it's only an option... but I wonder if this game has been balanced to make that option attractive? Sterling thinks so and now Polygon does, too. The problem apparently - and I say "apparently" because I haven't played it - comes to the forefront as you progress further into the game.

As I said, this does seem to be a good game - the scale and visuals are superb! - but I see it as a good thing when someone challenges the additional monetary expense for players; particulalry in this case where it appears tha the game design may drive you down that route.

I don't disagree but it's only an option. I'll happily agree that I'm wrong if there is a 20 hour grind at the end but I'm willing to bet this isn't the case.

Remember that Polygon and Sterling in particular have an audience to pander too so it's not just a case of them fighting the good fight.

[Venom]

Whilst Jim Sterling beats the same microtransations drum a lot he does know what he's talking about, and this is compounded by the Polygon article. However, Giuseppe Nelva a reporter for The Sixth Axis said 'It's Jim Sterling! Always trying to ride the latest fake outrage for money. And calls others greedy lol.'

So is Sterling just being sensationalist or is Giuseppe just a puppet of the publishers? I haven't played the game yet to say. But looking at a number of reviews I think that if you play the standard game you need to complete many sidequests to be in a position to complete the main storyline - this needn't be a bad thing if that is enjoyable. But if you pay for that Helix upgrade you don't need to do so many of those sidequests. The question there is... is the Helix upgrade just a paid cheat mode or has the default game's difficulty been changed?


I bought the Medusa Edition for Xbox, it all looks nice (I took a few pics and vids) but sent it back because, really, it's just tat that I haven't got the space for. I then bought the Gold Edition from CD Keys - and it's downloading now. I love the Greek setting as with the original God of War games so I want this to be great.

[Gemini73]

Jim does overreact, but he occasionally has a well made point amongst some of his rants.

As for Polygon, well from my experience of the site they, (like a lot of todays gaming sites), do suck an awful lot of publisher dick.

[Vermilion]

Whilst Jim Sterling

Maybe i'm just out of the loop as far as the world of gaming is concerned these days, but i've never even heard of that guy before.

[Photek]

Jim Sterling is a massive twat on certain things and his viewers will lap this up. I pity anyone who takes his opinions on board as he's just a mouthpiece for gamebro's despite trying to not do, which compounds things.

As an aside, I've 'completed' AC Origins, as in I've done the main story, do I just go about now doing side quests?