Jordan UK wrote:Assassin's Creed Odyssey (6)
Finally finished this. Started way back in July and it's the only thing I've been playing since then. Strange game in the sense that there are aspects that are ok: the story, for an AC game was alright and made a reasonable use of the Ancient Greek setting, the combat (while miles away from something like Batman Arkham Asylum) at least has the scope to be varied, Kassandra was quite charismatic (although the actor that played Alexis? Wtf).
The reason why I've come away pretty disappointed with it is that the size of the game makes no sense in the context of what's on offer. You could conceivably see all this game has to give (aside from some vaguely interesting quests involving mythical beasts in the run-up to the final quest) in 10 hours or so. Yet I finished this in just under 100 hours. Yes I spent a fair chunk of time unveiling the map before turning my hand to the main quests but I genuinely thought they'd be more of a pay off than what we got. This has some pretty good reviews but I feel like they must have been playing a different game. I've rarely played a game that has such a poor respect for the player's time. What's the point in filling a map with identikit camps, caves.and temples to fill a play space that serves no purpose at all?
Like many games this gen, the developers seem to be happy to have the players engaged, logging hours and appearing on friends' lists playing their product, by providing breadth but no depth. It felt like a game solely devised to keep you doing rather than being entertained which is a real shame as, if the fat was trimmed and it was more focussed, the game could have been a tiny bit better even if the game beneath all of the dross is only just an alright one. Unlike some of the games it's trying to ape, it rarely does things with any flare, care or individual expression. It is a game that is largely devoid of fun and creativity (aside from some of the things I've listed above).
I know I should have learned my lesson by now: I've enjoyed a few AC games but have been frustrated by them in equal parts. Some systems just don't seemed joined up at all; they are games created by committee and focus groups, and end up being woefully unrefined (e.g. horse traversal being slower than on foot in towns - why?).
Like I said, I've enjoyed a few AC games - including ones that aren't considered to be the better ones like ACIII and Unity. The ones I have enjoyed have been less bogged down in providing unnecessary bumph and milking time and / or money out of their player base than this one is. There's always an undeniable thrill in exploring their worlds for the first time but this thrill often gives way to frustrated boredom when you realise that the environments make for good screenshots and trailers but are pretty vapid play spaces to spend any extended time in. And is there anything more offensive than selling 'time saver' dlc to circumvent the unneccesary grind in these single player games?.Or hiding interesting armour behind paywalls despite the fact that the Gold editions can cost nearly £100 when first released?
Long story short: could have been a better game if it were only a fifth of the length.
Hopefully lessons will be learned for Valhalla.
Sums it up perfectly, I felt I had to finish it only because I had put in so many hours, but at times it felt more like a chore