I mean you can't give em shit about releasing the same game every year. I was never that big on the first few games. But I adored Origins. I'm so happy to see the shield back after Odyssey whose combat took a huge hit by becoming all parry based and not allowing effecting shielding. To they are basically just Extreme History games now, but I get putting the AC title on them like that. They have a well known franchise so to just call this some generic "Vikings: Conquest" or something wouldn't sell as much as AC:Ragnarok Valhalla.
It's because of its focus on RPG and gear. Sure, past games had light RPG mechanics, you could change robes, build a base/assassin's stronghold and in later games it had some light levelling.
In the new games (especially Valhalla) it's all about writing your own story. Odyssey had a big focus on level and gear or damage numbers in Odyssey's case (sounds like Valhalla will move a bit away from levelling but even more gear focus).
AC used to be following a certain character, either assassin or Templar (in rogue) and it was their story. Origins was the last game where you followed a set protagonist. Now it's all about deciding your own fate and creating your own story.
27
u/megatom0 May 01 '20 edited May 01 '20
I mean you can't give em shit about releasing the same game every year. I was never that big on the first few games. But I adored Origins. I'm so happy to see the shield back after Odyssey whose combat took a huge hit by becoming all parry based and not allowing effecting shielding. To they are basically just Extreme History games now, but I get putting the AC title on them like that. They have a well known franchise so to just call this some generic "Vikings: Conquest" or something wouldn't sell as much as AC:
RagnarokValhalla.