The rating is 77. 77 is the lowest rating a game in the main series of Assassins Creed has received. This means the other games have 78 or up. How in the world is this considered bad? For an entire fucking franchise? Not a fan of the series or anything but I just think it’s ridiculous how this is an actual headline! Don’t the journalists have nothing else to report on regarding video games and the industry? Layoffs? Toxic people and business practices? Microtransactions?
Nah, instead they go: “pretty good (but not great) game is slightly less good than other pretty good (but not great) games in an overall pretty good (but not great) franchise.” Ugh!
The headline says it’s the lowest-rated game in the series, not that Mirage is a bad game. The article bases itself on a single data point, which leaves a lot of room for interpreting. Which the author does a little.
But it’s nowhere mentioned or claimed that Mirage is a badly-reviewed game or doesn’t sell well. It’s just the lowest entry so far. And that’s what everybody should take away from that headline, followed by ignoring the hollow clickbaity article altogether.
Games are rated on a 7-10 scale though where 7 is mediocre and 8 is passable.
9 is good and 10 is great.
So between not completely unplayable and good enough is their score
To be fair, just because one article exists doesn’t mean other articles can’t exist. Not every article has to be of equal importance.
I watched a review video that was praising everything in this game. “Finally another good AC.” “The vombat is fun and challenging.” “Looks fantastic on the new engine.”
Then i watched just some guy playing it and it honestly looks janky as hell. He always got stuck while parkouring, the parkour itself seems like the same press one button to do parkour, but this time it’s really jank. There is no weapon variety at all. The combat looks really bad, it looks like the least fun combat in all these kind of games. The world looks really good, but the people in the world the jank ass AI and NPC doing weird shit while looking pretty Bethesda like. I haven’t played it, but how this got a 77 or anything above a 5/10 is beyond me.93A1A71EABD6B6CD658458CC1F4
From what I saw watching a few streams it seemed fine, closer to the original games but still having that slight off feeling of modern Ubisoft games. Seems like a good game on sale for $30
Good, Ubisoft lost the way since *Revelations.
*I do think AC3 is awesome, aside from the ending of course.
AC3 had too much of that boat gameplay. Worst thing about the game imo.
Absolutely disagree. Literally added “boat game” on every sequel. People clearly enjoyed that. I know I did. Will get a sea shanty going
You only had to do the boat bit in ac 3 like 2 times? There was a load of boat content but most of it was optional from what I remember
Good, maybe they’ll put this IP down for a while and give us some more Splinter Cell!
hmm why tho? /j
If they just rerelease it with just new design yeah it will drop in ratings
I’m really enjoying it. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it the most fun I’ve had in AC since black flag? Probably yes.
And considering it’s not even a full priced game, even better!
Any updates to your experience? I’m interested in getting it but I’m wary they’ve made some bad additions or half baked elements.
Is it truly a throwback to the older games?
Dunkey said the map and lore are great, but the parkour and combat are not.
Parkour looks like it’s taken at least 3 steps backwards. I always found it so frustrating to repeatedly press up against a wall instead of running up it, or leaping across little gaps instead of just walking the railing, or doing the little run up the wall and fall back down even when it’s clearly a climbable surface. It was slowly becoming less common in each game, but this one just looks like pure regression in terms of movement.
I don’t know how they managed to perfect the parkour in Unity then proceed to discard that system for inferior ones in every game since
Me : AC Valhalla is worst AC game…
Ubisoft : Just wait…
Why no love for Valhalla?
I’m playing out of sync. I did Valhalla Odyssey and now I’m playing through origin. I enjoyed a lot of Valhalla. I can see how they tweaked and polished from origins. I think I preferred the scenery in Odyssey and maybe the story and people. Valhalla had best fighting and slo mo. Graphics were outstanding and voice acting was pristine by Valhalla.
Valhalla is a nice action game but it’s no AC game. Especially the stealth part and name-sake Assassination gameplay take up too little space. And the skill tree they copied from PoE is just ridiculously overloaded - symptomatic for Ubisoft‘s approach to the whole game: it’s so convoluted.
I really enjoyed Valhalla but as an AC entry it disappoints.
The first 10 hours or so of Valhalla are great too. Learning the new systems and making your first parts of the settlement are pretty engaging. It’s the other 60+ hours that become a slog. You quickly realise that the main quest chain that was kinda outstaying its welcome is what you can expect for every single kingdom. Yeah, there’s some variety, but they’re really a slog to get through. The settlement upgrades were pretty good, but your mainly unlock things that would have been ‘free’ in other games. As the gear system leans towards microtransactions nothing you unlock is really mind-blowing. Especially as you’ll have to raid yet a other generic copy-and-paste monastery for the materials to upgrade.
If we look back to a game like ACII’s Villa upgrades, they provided access to things that would be behind a perk point today. I remember grinding out my capacity upgrades etc. There was direct tie from my effort to the upgrade. With Valhalla, and the other recent games, I feel like I’ve got to gring out the lootbox/heka chest(or whatever the premium currency is in a particular game)
That’s not to say Mirage is perfect. I really hate the token system and it feels so tacked on. I am enjoying being stealthy again though. I used a cheat trainer to add in one hit kills to Odyssey a while back and it improved the game so much.
Oh there’s no stealth. I basically just run around melee fighting everything. Valhalla was great for double spearing. Odyssey was a giant club and origin seems to be swordfish.
Fair enough
Valhalla has easily the worst combat of the three full on RPG AC games. Long attack animations every other time you finish an enemy off whilst all the others stand there patiently, for example.
Then there’s the unbelievably terrible barred doors that are absolutely everywhere (they are in mirage as well) which is the shittest, lowest effort puzzle they could have ever thought of and they repeated it every fifteen feet. Good luck maintaining stealth whilst you have to go back outside and circle the building looking for a hole in the wall to shoot an arrow through in a completely plausible and not at all deliriously stupid way.
Then there’s the offensively shallow side missions, the barely having anything to do with assassins for the vast majority of the shockingly bloated game, the sheer bugginess (tall grass used to disappear when I got close to it, all the way through the game), spending twenty minutes finding a chest that you spotted with your bird only to discover it’s impossible to access until you’re on or have completed a specific story mission. Having to wait for your raiders to open bloody chests, despite them being buggy idiots who will stand around ignoring you for five seconds before moving towards it as slowly as possible - all this, including three horrendous barred doors, in the middle of a Viking raid, because a Viking is incapable of breaking open a door somehow. Awful.
I love assassin’s creed, I’ve played all of them. Valhalla ruined the RPGs.
Yeah I didn’t mind that. Probably would have preferred to turn off the finishers.
Barred doors are awful. I agree. Bugs are bugs. Sane thing all Ubisofts have had. Did you play the original. Buggy mess.
Yeah some weird mechanics. I don’t mind some of it. Hates others
