Ubisoft reveals that Assassin's Creed: Valhalla was made by 17 studios and 1,000 employees

Ubisoft reveals that Assassin's Creed: Valhalla was made by 17 studios and 1,000 employees


That would explain why it feels so incoherent.


Lmao true


Same happened with Odyssey. You can point out which studio did which type of content.


IMO Odyssey felt like a much more complete vision than Valhalla. memorable side characters and a main story beat that I actually remember. Valhalla was about… sailing to england and forging alliances? And weird underdeveloped Isu stuff?


I mean, you’re right. There’s a million characters in Valhalla and they mostly feel like interchangeable noble toughies. Contrast that with Alkibiades, Barnabas and Socrates. Even the Ravensthorpe kids are random urchins compared to Phoibe.


Alkibiades is hilarious don’t think we’ll get another character quite like him haha


Bro don’t mention Phoibe, you wanna make me cry or what ._.


Phoibe? Hela? :'(


Phoibe was an annoying kid, I'm glad she isn't ruining my missions anymore


Said by every monster ever


I agree. Compared to Odyssey, Valhalla was so boring, I fell asleep halfway through. Its hopelessly stretched out.


See, I like a ton of stuff about Odyssey, except that I feel Valhalla (and Origins before it) actually PLAY much better. Tops on that list is that you can use a shield in those two games. Not having a shield, in a game taking place in Greece of all places, felt like an absolute absurd design choice.


I'm playing Odyssey again. I had never played a game twice before. I only wish I could wipe the memory I have of the game so it would feel like a new experience again.


I never noticed, do you have any examples?




DLC felt like a different game? Interesting.


Very few games pull off the DLC so well, that it feels like a diff game. Certain Mass Effect DLCs like the LOTSB,Project Overlord and the Citadel DLC. The Witcher 3 is the best in its class, with regards to both of its DLCs


Undead nightmare


i thought Origins had great DLCs.


Yup, the supernatural world was probably my favorite of the all DLCs. Still have nightmares of those chicken things.


Its actually rare nowadays;)


idk, it felt hollow to me. Expansive, gorgeous, but hollow


Of course they don't. They just want to shit on things


Curious to know which.


It's not as apparent imo though, only in the DLC, that one is obvious.


Like what? I never noticed anything like this in my 200 hours


Ive noticed a significant quality jump on the crete island, from asthetical aspects and questlines (minotaurus and side missions). The whole crete island and its quests were built by Ubisoft Sofia.


Those were the ones that made Rogue right?




Crete was the best part of the game


I thought Crete was done by Singapore/Chengdu/Philippines, just like the other islands?


Damn straight


You know almost all of the asssassins creed games (actually all Ubisoft games) have been designed like that? This isn’t the first. It’s been like that for a decade at least. Ubisoft is a huge company.


I came here to say basically this; farmland simulator with occasional fights.


My thought exactly. The larger the team, the weaker the game, and bigger the bugs.


" we onboarded most of our partners in November or October of 2018, and we flew the leaders of each of the studios to Montreal for a week of presentations and dinners" Money well spent no doubt, too bad the people actually working on the game did not receive as much attention.


Upper management looking after upper management as usual.


These games need tight gameplay in a thriving world with a huge amount of player agency. I get that each game is a set time piece and the devs want to explore every valuable inch of the time period it’s set in, but the bloat is exhausting. You still make a 50+ hour game by being more refined and restrained, but it takes time and patience to do that. Winchester should have been an amazing experience, it was an after thought. Viking raids should have been an epic scene, it was repetitive. Large scale conflicts should have felt like a movie, but they were… binary. Assassin’s need to feel intimate with the world around them. I neither cared or felt a connection to any of the places visited and out of the dozens of characters I met along the way, I didn’t feel connected to most of them. The world felt fake, like a studio prop. The backdrop was just there so people could speak in front of it. Even my home that I built up from the ground didn’t feel like a home. The character you take control of should feel like a top level grifter working their way through a maze of people and guards on set to their target. Take a note from *Hitman* and give the the player some opportunity to really learn the world they’re in to uncover a range of viable ways to kill their target. Weave in the shadow organization with the story in more ways than simply naming a random person you kill for some meaningless reason as a member of the order.


I think that movie set feel has something to do with the limited proper cutscenes. The AI poses and mouth sync is really easy to see through, and you can’t have it and characters you care about at the same time. That, and the fact that Ubisoft PURPOSEFULLY chose settings they could JUST manage to cut corners on with the architecture - specifically the Roman-sequel buildings. So much copy paste, no effort


You’re 100% right. My biggest disappointment was how boring and repetitive the raids were. That’s wild in a Viking game.


Valhalla may be my last Assassins Creed. I could be wrong, but it seems like they're going to be doubling down on this kind of design moving forward.


They will, they have every financial incentive to. Lowest common denominator slop makes more money than artistic vision. Capitalism is grinding games down to nothing just like it did film over time. The only promising thing is that it's easier for indie games to get a foothold than for other media.


every ubisoft AAA game is made like that... there is a main canadian studios that makes the conceptual work and then the biggest part of the development (ubisoft montreal) + smaller parts of development and other processes like debugging etc... are made by smaller ubisoft studios and 3rd parties studios. It has always worked like this in last 10 years for ubisoft AAA games... main problem is not in technical production (which is good for console but terrible for pc portings) but in conceptual! ubi soft games are so conceptually old and repetitive and ubi soft simply doesn't care to improve quality of their games.... well now they got even worse changing AC format in a possible gaas...


Why change it when they can wring more microtransactions out of spoiled 14 year olds whose media critique goes no further than "vikings cool"?


Not a teenager anymore, but vikings are definitely cool 😎 :(


They are, but you know what I mean. Ubisoft isn't picking their settings or mechanics because they fit the series or are interesting, they're picking them to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Which makes it all the more funny that long ago they refused to do so by doing feudal Japan, a setting I now dread them doing.


I find that... disturbing. Compared to Origins and Odyssey, Valhalla feels like a step down in so many aspects. The game was in development since Origins wrapped up in 2017 and yet a lot of features present in both Origins and Odyssey the following year are missing from Valhalla and it's new mechanics are very underdeveloped. Odyssey came out just a year after Origins and managed to pack so much more mechanics and systems. From the naval gameplay, to the mercenary system, to full inventory slots, the dialogue system, the skill tree, etc. Valhalla on the other hand feels very much barebones yet somehow still suffered from the same bloat that Odyssey had. And don't get me started on animation. Most of the games "cut-scenes" were made using those emote-like preset animation that gave the game a machinima feel. Some key scenes were properly animated, but even then barely. Despite Ubisoft announcing that it would go into it's second year of support, a lot of features from the two previous games are still missing. We could blame it on Covid, but, again, this game were supposedly in development since late 2017/early 2018. It's crazy Odyssey for all it's flaws managed a more polished end product two years earlier. It feels like Valhalla's success is being measured in sales and "player engagement" only, but honestly I'm not sure that's the right indicator.


Playing valhalla... It felt like the game had no passion or motivation to be great. Just an ok game.


I don't know about no passion or motivation, but I can confidently state whatever passion or motivation involved was buried in a landslide of bloat stemming from a lack of passion or motivation.


It just felt like a grind upon grind upon grind for very little reward when all I wanted to do was sneak attack and break a few heads.


Ok is generous. It was probably one of least thought out and boring games I've ever played. It was complete and utter garbage. Even Anthem was fun until you got to the end game.


I sometimes miss the time before I hit anthem's endgame, just going nuts with friends tossing giant balls of inexplicable sci-fi magic at things and making the most fun ding noise in existence.


Totally agree mate! Great fun until endame.


Woah woah woah.. this is a Reddit take. Let’s not go overboard. The game is not that bad.


You see an opinion you disagree with and chalk it up to the reddit echo chamber? This is my own opinion of the game after roughly 110 hours. I would have not played the game at all if Ubisoft would have given me a refund after playing it for an hour. I wrote a fat list of issues of design decisions that were either not thought out or not considered at all. These are mostly issues unbecoming of what other people and myself would consider a polished video game in general and not just issues that apply to what people expect of an AC title. The game does next to nothing new or different that wasn't already somehow a part a previous title and does worse in a lot of areas that were parts of previous titles. It is quite literally the worst game I've ever played.


“The worst game I’ve ever played” *proceeds to spend 110 hours playing it*


> Reads my comment but conveniently ignores the sentence immediately after what they're referring to You're better than that


> It is quite literally the worst game I've ever played. if this is really your honest opinion, then you must either be really young or you haven't played very many other games at all.


> an opinion that disagrees with what I think of the game, I better insult them that'll really show them


i'm not trying to insult you. "quite literally the worst game i've ever played" is an extremely strong statement, and frankly i don't think you can possibly have played very many games at all, if that's your honest true opinion. valhalla isn't a great game, but it's very far from "the worst game".


Ubisoft in a nutshell


I was trying to pick Valhalla back up this week and I just couldn’t keep going. The story is uninteresting and repetitive, the writing isn’t great, some of the models look like they’re from two gens ago. The combat is simple and repetitive. The stealth isn’t legitimately built into the game design. It’s a shame because sometimes the world looks beautiful and interesting, but when you travel there’s little interesting things to find.


It was extremely jarring going from AC Valhalla to ghost of Tsushima, the difference in quality was astounding. I say this as a long time AC fan who enjoyed Origins and Odyssey. Valhalla is easily the worst main game in the entire series, full stop. Playing the first dlc just extra cemented that. Ubisoft is now making $60 mobile games under the guise of console games.


The only thing that I will defend is Modern day, it's a great step up and an actual foundation for future ideas: Spoilers for MD story. >!what was interesting is that we were showed a tree with all the timelines and possibilities that will and could've happened, which opens a door that could give us alternate versions of our past protagonists, possibilities are endless, especially with what alleged "Desmond", said to Layla about his death in 2012!< >!Adding Basim to Modern Day was such a cool idea, making an Assassin from the past live amongst modern day Assassins and giving him a mysterious personality which makes it uncertain what his true motives are!<


Good point. This is maybe the first AC game where I finished it actually interested where the present day story goes next. Not even the Desmond stuff did that.


Ghost of Tsushima is the Assassin's Creed that should've been. It's astonishing how much that game feels like the perfect combination of classic AC with the new RPG formula, without it even being an AC title. Despite being relatively new, AC is one of my favorite franchises but I'm so jaded I didnt even bothered to purchase the DLCs. Yet I can hardly wait to Iki Island.


I've been wanting to play Ghost of Tsushima for so long but I can't buy a PS4 or PS5 right now Sony exclusivity is kind of tragic because it limits more people from experiencing a masterpiece


Same here lol


You'll like Sekiro too. They do stealth quite well there and make it an important tool.


>It feels like Valhalla's success is being measured in sales and "player engagement" only, but honestly I'm not sure that's the right indicator. Absolutely, we can't also forget that the launch of the new consoles had a big role in this. For some weeks, Valhalla was one of the only AAA games you could play at 60fps on the new consoles, making it almost a must buy.


Yep. That's exactly what I thought when I wrote it. It's similar to Black Flag during the PS4/Xbox One launch. There weren't many launch titles and AC was one of the highest profile games at launch. Difference is, Black Flag was a good game of its own. Add that the pandamic where people are stuck at home and even old gen will sell well.


Valhalla is the only AC game that I honestly can’t bring myself to finish, it’s just so dull and even longer than Odyssey. And I’ve beaten every AC game 2-4 times, with Odyssey like 3 times and that’s including both the First Blade and Atlantis DLCs.


Same sentiment, playing Valhalla after liking Odyssey feels like a step down.


And playing Odyssey after loving Origins feels like a step down for me... The map feels copy-pasted, empty and boring, bad walking animations, no shield, etc


Origins will probably remain the last good AC game before it fully became an empty husk propping up a micropayment store.


I actually really like Valhalla, I'd say it's just as good as Origins and Odyssey. I love all 3 of these games.


I prefer it to Odyssey for some reason. Valhalla is flawed and a little glitchy, but I felt like I was doing the same thing over and over in Odyssey. I was getting 8000 different pieces of gear but most of it was garbage and walking into each area and having all the loot and whatnot called out kinda killed the vibe. Valhalla could have been a way better game if they pushed further in a lot of the directions they went but I do prefer the direction they went


Yeah I agree, Valhalla is really fun. I really like all the side activities that are in the game like Orlog, Animus glitch puzzles and the drinking games. They are small things but they help change up the gameplay and I think Odyssey would've been even better if it had more variety to it.




When will we see that if you like something, doesn't translate it into being good; and viceversa. Not meaning any offence tho, I liked Anthem and Outriders and they are considered really bad.


Personally I think Valhalla is a great game and most people I've talked to think so as well. Most of the hate seems to come from people who are determined to hate any RPG style AC game they release. I'm not saying Valhalla is perfect but I do feel it's a good game that gets far more hate then it deserves.




Your take is very accurate IMO. Let’s remember the hate is from a sub group of way less people than the total number that bought the game. It’s liked, rated pretty highly and it sold a ton. 300k redditors can bitch all they want but majority likes it.


Yeah and that's how it is for a lot of things unfortunately. The people that dislike something always seem to drown out the people that like it. It's too bad because I think it's better to have more beneficial discussions and be able to see good and bad in everything. No game is perfect but most games aren't entirely awful either. I personally loved Valhalla but I acknowledge it has flaws. If I say anything positive about it though I'm instantly criticized for not being a "true fan".


Yeah - I completely agree. We just live in that era right now. I don’t think it’s going anywhere. The platforms exist where basically everyone can “feel” right or walk away justifying the disagreement to still favor them. Lol. If I’m a developer im not even visiting sub Reddits for feedback because of the way people act.


Yeah it's ridiculous. I couldn't imagine being a developer, especially for Assassin's Creed when you've got people trashing your work for years in a row. I get that not everything works for everyone but I don't think any game developer sets out to intentionally make a game that will upset people.


Exactly - I do think they can find comfort in the sales and those who do make logical statements when offering constructive feedback. While I don’t particularly feel everything that sells well is good, if the reviews are high and it sells well, then I think they did there part.


Yeah that's very true. I'm glad not everyone on here is someone who likes to hate on everything in the new AC games haha.


It’s because likeness is subjective. It doesn’t make something bad. Vahlhalla reviewed well and most liked it. This lonesome Reddit thread is not an indicator of the larger population. Sales do account for it too and it’s like the highest selling AC game thus far. You redditors. Lol


I am not saying valhalla is bad lol I was just stating that I have seen a lot of people think that something is good only because they like it. And that is not always the truth. And there is absolutely nothing bad about liking something that is not objectively good. But some people arouse inmediately when you say something they like might not be that good, they just like it. And you can determine that a product is good or bad, then comes likeness


Lol I think your mind is in a good place but your logic is flawed. People are defending a popular game in a franchise because it sold well and is majorly liked by a large percentage of those who played it and the entire AC series. This is not a cult movie or game. It’s widely known, liked, and popular so people do get sick of those who are visible in these threads complaining about the game. It gives a bad name to those who worked hard on it and those who genuinely like it; which makes up the majority of players.


I was under the impression (from playing Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla), that they made Valhalla before Origins and Odyssey and just released it as tge third titlte, this is weird. They scaled back or something.


I like Valhalla’s progression system way more than any of the other games. I love not having to stop to level before continuing the story and I love the skill tree offers a lot of different ways to level and play.


Honestly I'm glad the egypt game was well made and the Viking (they're overrated) game was the one that had to fall. Sadly odyssey did a bit too, wasted potential for that period but it seems not as bad as Valhalla.


Doesn’t feel like a step down for me


Yeah this is the obvious statement. I swear any sub Reddit now prefers to hate and downvote logic. The game is good on many levels, looks amazing, ties the story in with AC lore, gives you like 5 days of single player content. These hot takes are getting out of hand


No, from a gameplay standpoint It's actually better. From a story standpoint its also better, but whatever


Same, as a story this had a lot more (actually good) lore and a narrative thread that appealed to me as a longtime fan, and I loved the fact that they walked back on all the loot and level grind. I suppose if you come from only the perspective of playing Origins and Odyssey it is technically a "step down", but coming at it as an Assassin's Creed fan Valhalla is their best game in years. It is just a shame it is marred by so many technical issues and such poor post launch rollout.


I feel like this is a Last Jedi scenario. I'm on the other side, long time fan, hated it. At least we can rest assured that the next one may be a completely different game, or the next 25 ones...


Fair enough, I have many friends who dislike it and are longtime fans as well. I can totally see why, I just don't particularly share the same sentiments


Honestly, that's great for the franchise, as long as people talk about it


I can tell you that from the amount of QoL features missing from the previous games and the sheer amount of bugs, that objectively it's gameplay is not better.


Gameplay better in valhalla?


Valhalla’s combat is probably better than Origins’. The stealth and parkour are significantly worse, though, lol. I do agree with you about story, though, Origins has probably the worst narrative I’ve ever seen in any blockbuster, ever.


If there’s anything we’ve learned from Reddit it’s that all the people complaining usually represent a minuscule fraction. I remember seeing how many people actually returned cyberpunk (30,000), meanwhile they sold 13.7 million copies in 2020 alone. Sure it might not be a good game but according to what standards? I can imagine most people who are full time working and game casually (which represents a majority) are probably pretty impressed by a game like Cyberpunk and/or Valhalla.


Cyberpunk is legitimately a pretty good game. It isn't accurate to what they advertised, but it's still a pretty good game. I feel like you gotta be next level butthurt to ignore all the things it does right in favor of what it does wrong.


No kidding. I went in without buying the hype or anything, and had a phenomenal experience.


To say that Valhalla's animation is a "downgrade" from Odyssey is such a powerful statement considering i always hated Odyssey's. I haven't played Valhalla yet, waiting for a good discount...looks like i am waiting a bit longer.


It was way better then Odyssey but nor Origins. It was an ok game but its not as bad as this sub makes it seem.


Way better then Odyssey for sure but it is not exactly that high of a bar since it offers the worst “Assassins” experience.


AC Valhalla was the first AC game i dropped cause it was so fcking boring and bloated


And they said at one point that over 2000 devs worked on Ghost Recon Breakpoint... doesn't feel like it.


..and a rare and little smile became visible on Artur Morgan face..


And somehow it's still buggy as fuck almost a year after release and they keep adding even more bugs with each update. Case of utter incompetent management or too many cooks?


It’s Ashraf’s own damn fault for getting fired, however, that dude was a great director. I think the game would look different if he was still in charge of Valhalla.


He left only months before release though to be fair. Not only that, but even Ashraf would not be able to fix the game's pacing issues and bloat.


He 100% was not a part of the post-launch stuff. Other studios do DLC, that's how Ubisoft Quebec broke into the IP.


i dont't think creative directors have a whole lot of impact when it comes to bug fixes


Man, I must have gotten lucky because I only encountered maybe two or three bugs in my 100 hours of playing Valhalla at launch. I had a far better experience with Valhalla 7 months ago than I did playing Unity one month ago. Now that game is a buggy mess.


Both. You have to be insane to think having 17 different studios is going to make a coherent game imo


Yea but a lot of times those studios are probably working on a speciality, like audio, or writing, while others are simply recording voice actors and sending it to the audio, some are designing just animations or making armor sets based off concept art. It’s hardly like they’re all just off on their own not communicating lol


More studios on a single game is not a good thing.


Remember when PC Gamer called it one of the best AC games ever and then trashed on Cyberpunk for bugs? Yeah that aged well.


Too many cooks.


Odyssey was better


Maybe that’s why it’s a broken mess and so inconsistent. Again ubi strikes with quantity over quality smh. Richest game company in the world ladies and gentlemen how embarrassing.


Valhalla has no soul but was made by all of these people... sad


And the graphics are still barely better than Odyssey


I get the feeling if you have a $2000+ PC the graphics are significantly better. On console I'd totally agree though. I actually think Origins and Odyssey look better in certain areas on my Series X. Valhalla feels extremely unoptimized to me. It was pretty disappointing for my first "next-gen" game honestly.


They're better but not 3 years worth of tech advancement better. Plus a lot of vital stuff like animations, clipping, facial expressions (and general cutscene quality) were just shit. The lighting was also just generic. Half it's shtick was "sunlight striking through the trees/windows". Just full of overblown clichés that were made to seem like good attention to detail without having actually paid any attention to detail.


The graphics are definitely worse than both of the prior games.


You know what you're probably correct it just annoys me to see the X/S logo on it (series X) when other games even by Ubisoft with the same logo look excellent. I'm replaying Witcher 3 again and even that has more pleasing graphics on the new console.


It shows …. & not in a good way


Imagine rallying 17 studios and 1,000+ people around a single vision then have that vision lead to anything coherent. Lol! Explains so much!


also 800 of them were just ctrl-c ctrl-v mechanics that their 200 did.


they say that like it's a flex LMFAOO fix the damn clipping and audio issues you clowns


And yet it’s one of the most boring to date.


The idiom "Too many chefs in the kitchen" comes to mind.


I really enjoyed it, even all the ''filler arcs''


Too many cooks in the kitchen? Maybe that explains all the glitches. And why they expect us to sympathize with a clan who is constantly burning down innocent peoples’ villages.


>And why they expect us to sympathize with a clan who is constantly burning down innocent peoples’ villages. Wait, is USA in the game?


>!Funnily enough, it is.!<


Monasteries as well. The institutions that played a big part in preserving knowledge through the middle ages and they are treated as if they are just the home for tyrants and plunder.


All that put into the game and they're still patching gamebreaking bugs and have no fix for the broken stealth after 8 months... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cia1aWdiIc0 Oh dear.


"From 17 Studios to 1,000 – How Assassin’s Creed Valhalla Crossed the Finish Line During the Pandemic" They crossed the finish line in last place, that's how


They wanted to cross money line and they did you guys can say game sucks and all but for ubi they made record high money from ac Valhalla


Yeah because of MTX in a single-player game


>Well, it was polish, but it's also the point of development where, for the first time, we were getting a full understanding of the game that we were making. I know that sounds kind of weird, but the game was coming together, and we had so many systems that relied on the game to be actually almost done. For example, the quest arcs: With over 20 quest arcs working together, how would that feel for the player? That was the first time we saw that come together. Lmao they only realized near the end of development what their game would be like and by then it'd be too late to make any adjustments. No wonder the game felt so fucking long, they had 20 quest arcs and by the time they realized it would be a huge fucking slog to play through, it was too late to make any changes.


This is the exact reason I’ve yet to finish the game. Played 60-70 hours and then hung it up for good after clearing a camp one day and feeling like I’d done it enough times at that point, not seeing the finish line anywhere in sight, that was it for me. I would love to finish the game now that I have the new console, but there’s no motivation to sink 80 hours in to a play through on a game that doesn’t compel you to play that long. As a Norwegian it is a massive bummer that they finally brought the game to Scandinavia and it was a let down compared to every other AC title… maybe it was partially my own fault for hyping it up in my mind as the best AC before it even released.


Since that clearly didn't fucking work, how about you make the next one with 2 studios and 200 employees?


This is why they can't make a new Splinter Cell, Rayman, Prince of Persia, a coherent & good Assassins Creed, or anything that people even remotely want. Glad they managed to find 1 studio or 10 not working on Assassins Creed so they could make XDefiant though. That's a joke -- obviously the team working on XDefiant was also simultaneously working on the next Assassins Creed. That's how you get quality products!


I'd cream myself if they made something as good as splinter cell : chaos theory again


As a hardcore classic SC fan -- I haven't really liked any game since Double Agent and even that one was starting to veer away from what made CT so amazing. The series has basically been dead for 15 years for me. I look at the newest Hitman games and I'm like "man, THIS is the kind of return to form I'd enjoy for SC."


How many of them were harassed?


But wasn't it already like that for like, every AC games since at least the PS4/Xbone era ?


yes, but the general reddit user wants to hate on the latest installment, cause here he gets the most intention.


And how many of that thousand were mistreated or sexually harassed?


i think Ubisoft lost the connection to they players. I dont think that having 17 Studios building a game will solve the complains people already had with the new way AC goes since 2017.


lmao this is absurd how they didn’t reach even 20% of RDR2 quality with that number of staff and budget.


That's because Rockstar is motivated by creating truly amazing games. Whereas, Ubisoft is motivated by executives telling them to make all the money.


>That's because Rockstar is motivated by creating truly amazing games And then abandoning these masterpieces to oblivion, focusing on MTX-ridden online grindfeasts. Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Great game + decent post-launch support.


yeah and everytime a rockstar title launches you here shoutouts from the devs for having to work for 80 hour a week, just to implement highly detailed skin animations, no one gives a fuck.


How is it absurd? RDR2 had 1,600 developers and a total of over 2,000 people working on it. The game had over 8 years of development. So Valhalla has half the number of devs to complete this game in roughly 3 years. So less than half the time with half the devs. Valhalla may not be incredible but it's nowhere near as bad as this sub makes it out to be. If RDR2 is a 9/10 then Valhalla is a 7/10 at worst. Given the fact that Valhalla was developed with half the team, in less than half the time, with the pandemic affecting development, the only thing absurd is that it managed to be as good and massive as it is. There's plenty of valid complaints about Valhalla and AC in general, but the devs ability to churn this shit out year after year is impressive. It's management that needs to reevaluate their contributions.


terribly wrong comparison... as far I never crazy liked RDR2, rockstar takes the time they need aiming to release a game close to the perfection in every aspect, ubisoft aims to release a game full of contents but lacking of general quality in the scheduled roadmap


I agree, but I'm not the one who originally made the comparison. I'm just setting the right expectations and calling out the bullshit implications.


I'm waiting for someone to say "new games bad, old games good" ironically or that "all this sub does is complain", when they themselves know that Valhalla delivered short on so many things, except soundtrack and modern day. It does do a lot of things well, but having game breaking bugs after a year and introducing new bugs via patches is not an excuse when you have 17 studios on the job.


While I'll agree with you about the bugs, because that is a cold, hard fact, This sub *is* a new AC complain-a-thon circlejerk.


I got flamed on another post by someone telling me how much of an idiot I am for wanting the series to go back to its roots. There are very much supporters for the new games.


I heavily doubt the post-launch content and bug fixes are assigned to 17 studios.


If they did, it would be patched up faster though. I mean the newest patch got rid of some bugs but introduced some new ones like the Ireland sleeping cutscene bug. Honestly its a good enough game but there are so many nitpicks, like how certain fish won't spawn, or that the game just crashes with no reason while I fast travel. I apologize if I sound like a complaining jerk, life's hard enough without your fav series' latest game has many problems.


>If they did, it would be patched up faster though It really would not, thats not how it works in any sort of development. I'd argue the bugs the game experienced are a side effect of having so many people working on it. Each team is working on something fairly isolated and probably doesn't notice when their change breaks something. Teams probably assume shit like the quiver bug or weapon dropping bug from early game is someone elses issue and then the shit doesn't get fixed


Don't worry, I understand the frustration. I didn't really experience a lot of bugs, so my opinion of the game is a bit higher, but I guess I was just lucky there. From an outsider perspective it seems to me that there just aren't a lot of devs working on fixes and the post-launch content, which would mean bad managment decsions, instead of the "dev laziness" many people are ranting about often here. (Not trying to allude to that you said that here) As game development is neither an easy, nor a well paid job inside IT I doubt any seriously lazy person would choose such a carrier, quite apart from the fact that Ubisoft surely wouldn't hesitate to replace a bad dev with any other of the thousands of enthusiastic developers an the market.


And it’s still mediocre garbage


All those studies and they couldn’t add one handed swords or bird spotting? You know, things that are in the previous 2 games.


Is that why it’s so disjointed with no real vision outside of the modern day story


And it still keeps crashing


No wonder I don't feel anything playing it. Lame game.


Not my favorite game, but I will say, Fenrir is one if the scariest mf I ever fought in my life.


Imagine design meetings where a bunch of people with conflicting ideas are just yelling over each other about what assassin's creed is. God.....it'd be like this subreddit


It's a gigantic game, so I suppose that makes sense. I'm looking forward very much to the next season of content.


And it's still gathering dust on my shelf since 2 weeks after release


Same :( well.. Virtual shelf. If only the combat was better. Then gameplay would be a lot more fun. Let's just hope they learn from their mistakes and stop churning games out every year or 2. Then again, it's going to become a live service. Imo it might even become an mmo in the future.


And still no New Game +


Too many cooks in the kitchen...explains the mediocre meal.


Haven’t played Valhalla yet, plan to at some point but Odyssey haven’t been able to get a PS5 and Odyssey sort of took the momentum of playing AC out for a while. That said…what is that wolf thing in the screenshot doing in AC? Is it a dream sequence like in Origins (which worked well imo) or is it more like Odyssey where there are mythological monsters roaming the map in a “history” game?


It took 1000 people to make this mediocre crap??? Minecraft was made by one person with a vision. It’s miles better


Oh my god shut up why are you comparing Minecraft to assassins creed they don’t even claim to be the same thing


Because Minecraft is more impressive on a technical level than what any ubisoft game will ever be


Are you genuinely deluded? Minecraft is nowhere near as technically impressive as any Assassins Creed game. Do you know what the term technically impressive even means? Don’t get me wrong I love Minecraft and I think it’s a great game but comparing the technical scope of Minecraft to a triple A open world RPG is like comparing sticks to guns. Edit: downvote me, sure.


I don't know why you're being downvoted. The game could be interesting and nice while simple technically, and another could be very complex technically and still boring


I personally had way more fun playing the original Mario Bros as a kid than I did playing the new Avengers Game but is no way in hell the Avengers game technically inferior to Mario Bros


Puts into perspective how bloated gaming is becoming. It takes 1,000 employees to make a game now. They're getting incredibly expensive and time consuming to step up the size (map, systems, etc.) and graphics. Explains why it takes so long for new games to come out, why some studios are adding microtransactions, and some are even increasing the base cost to buy the games. And yet we expect the quality to be the same when all of these things combined can't make the player base happy. The consumer wants bigger games, goals (which usually equals systems - which honestly are way overdone), and better graphics. But it seems like that won't be sustainable. We here obviously care deeply, which is why we complain. But the average consumer just buys a game and plays as much or little as they want. I'm sure people purchased on the promise of the things I mentioned before. We also have to keep in mind that the people making the game are humans too. hey put their heart and soul, and countless hours into making this for us to enjoy. If you don't enjoy it, that's your right.


This bloat is due almost entirely to the failure of management. There is absolutely no reason a game like AC: Valhalla needs 1000 people to complete. Even in 2 years.


Woah 1000 employees and not a single one of them could see that it was shit


I've been in this sort of situation. 800+ of them probably did realize it was shit. The managers just didn't care. They probably gave unrealistic deadlines and hitting those deadlines is all that mattered. Managers constantly make promises that the staff can't fulfill. It's shitty and Valhalla feels like a perfect example.


Here's the thing about videogame development The devs spend years on these projects Many thousands of hours more time is spent on making these than anyone will spend playing them They knew exactly how it would turn out, and if anything that makes it more deserving of sympathy because those final months must have been even more demoralizing to work on as the rough shape of the final product of their years of effort materialized


No ubisoft we wanted how many people worked on the game not how many employees you assaulted