I may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but I have to disagree with all the posts on this forum about how superior Odyssey is to Valhalla. Valhalla is the first Assassins Creed game I have ever played, and I really enjoyed it. After I finished all the main quest lines, I went and downloaded Odyssey because of all the positive comments I’ve read about it. I’m not too far into Odyssey as of this writing (level 13), but I have to say that I really don’t like the game all that much for numerous reasons which I won’t get into. I will agree that there are a couple nice things about Odyssey, naval battles for instance, but for the most part I find the whole thing boring. It seems to me that Odyssey just follows the traditional tried-and-true system of leveling up to get better gear so that you can level up to get better gear so that you can level up to get better gear, etc. and etc. Maybe people who are used to that system like it, but I am bored with it. I like the fact that the developers of Valhalla have tried something new. Now, I don’t think the game is perfect. For instance, it seems to me that following the Wolf line of abilities is a waste of time until you get toward end game. Nevertheless, I do want to congratulate the developers for what they have accomplished.

@fortyniners354 well odyssey wasnt either a good AC game. i believe from this new trilogy in my opinion the best is origins.. story writting and also gameplay is the best, yes u may say well nowadays gameplay is a bit better.. well maybe, but u have to understand that origins, was the first one to introduce the game style we have in AC today.. thats why is the best for me.. also origins in armours is very similar to valhalla.. the amount of gear u can get there is very limited.. but the problem is that in origins this helix shop gears where easy to get in game. by doing reda missions.. or killing some of this weird mission where u fight anubis..
than with odyssey they improved i believe the gameplay i little bit, the habilities where more based on what kind of play style u wanted to go, because it was more difficult to lvl up, also the gear in ac odyssey was really full of variety and more rewarding out of all... the bounty system was the best thing about Ac odyssey in my opinion, that system gives the game a lot of replayability.. and the reward for killing the mercernaries based on their rank was good too but the story was just bad (in my opinion)
in valhalla they removed the bounty system.... the game is better writted and the map is better. but after u finish the story, the game is boring, there is nothing that rewards you for keep playing it.. wish they add the bounty system again...


also and most important thing of out all those AC games.. bayek and aya would be remembered as a good characters they were writted well, their story and their ideology where good... in AC odyssey and valhalla, the characters are blant, boring, with no ideologies.. i just cant feel them...

@fortyniners354 You're not the only one; I too like Valhalla more than Odyssey. I am not at all saying Odyssey is bad though, and Valhalla is still far from perfect.

In Valhalla I really enjoyed the way the storyline and side missions are handled. The side missions are like short stories rather than the traditional kill or item-fetch quests. The main story is divided into self-contained quests so it is easier to follow their development as well. I also liked building the Settlement a lot; it is similar to the Villa in AC2 & rebuilding Rome in ACBrotherhood. Having less gear to manage is definitely a plus for me.

I too liked the mercenary ranking system in Odyssey but I understand why it is not included in Valhalla; Eivor is not a mercenary. As for naval battles, from what I recall, Ubisoft said the Vikings mostly used their longships for transport rather than naval battles (I could be wrong though).

The skill tree is nice; the abilities however could use some improvement. Some of them seem to lack their uniqueness, or situational use, unlike the supernatural abilities in the Dishonored series.

@fortyniners354

you cant really judge a game when yoiu havent even finished it now can you? I mean at lvl13 you barely scratched the surface.

@ImaginaryRuins Yeah I really just loved the story line too, nothing like the same repetitive nonsense in each and every story arc, and hey just loved the settlement where you have zero interaction with your people other than sales, (actually that kind of sounds like Ubisoft) Splendid idea having a map maker too, awesome getting more directions to things that are already on the map! I just adored the side quests too all 3 of them were just "to die for."And hey how about those "minute mysteries" huh, we're talking game play history here! But gosh you know what was really the kaboodle?Getting the God weapons at the end of the game, Can't tell you the thrill I felt getting those...when I really didn't need them.I'll tell you the only thing I can think of as great as this game is getting rid of last nights dinner. and speaking of which....where's the sport's section....ok going to relive the best parts of Valhalla which strangely enough has become an awesome cure for constipation!!!!!So as the young Marion said to Robin,"keep poking that spear."

@fortyniners354 Finish the game and come again.

When I started Valhalla, I did not like it at all. It felt boring, annoying and too hard. Can barely regen health, freeze in the water, no leap of faith. Getting to England should have been much faster. Then, when I got to England I initially preferred it to Odyssey. I like the story more, and I was enjoying all the different activities. After a while though, things started to annoy me. The open world that still forces you to do things in a specific way. Can't raid forts on your own. Have to do what the game says during main mission fort battles. Then you get way too many skill points as there's no loot in the game so that's the standard reward, when it's not a tattoo or similar. Way too many puzzles to find underwhelming stuff. Too many tedious objectives involving killing animals. All the quirky new fun stuff gets super repetitive as there's way too much of it, apart from flyting and the dice game, which there are not an overwhelming amount of. If you try to do everything, you are at some point OP and once you've finished the main story, all that's left to do is grindy.

Please, just kindly leave those who like AC Valhalla alone.

@kreutzgang

flyting was really fun, but there maybe like 3 conversation where you could use your skill, none past lvl3.
So that felt all pretty pointless and undewhelming.

Agreed, I'll be ,more than happy to leave players alone that like the game because I don't have a problem with that, what I do have a problem with is you making light of people who have had constant problems with the game, Like we're just complaining for the sake of complaining, so you put away your fief and drum in defense of these problems which apparently aren't a problem for you, and I'll be more than happy to play and let play. You see I'm as tired of hearing you praise this game as much as your tired of hearing me complain about the same things that have never been addressed, two way street my friend.

@fortyniners354 I think it is step sideways. I like both games but they have different plus & minus points. If I had to pick I would also go with AC:V over AC:O.

But some things about Odyssey were better. Mounted combat, for example. It worked just fine in AC:O so why oh why remove such a feature? 9th century Northern Europe was mostly about infantry but there certainly was cavalry in the late 800s (& Rollo's Viking descendants in Normandy (i.e. the Normans) would be the leading shock cavalry warriors of their era only a little later).

Some anachronisms are also a bit jarring (don't get me started on bows). No single handed swords in AC:V? Seriously? Two handed swords were not even a thing in this era, albeit axes were. And where does the sub-Saharan African female blacksmith who puts in a brief appearance come from? No explanation whatsoever! This would be something that would flabbergast people in 9th Century England & be a topic of much conversation as pretty much no one would have even heard of a dark skinned person let alone seen one before.

I much prefer the format for questing in AC:V, and the fortress assaults are wonderful. Likewise the Monastery raids (albeit the historical Vikings were not in the slightest concerned about how many monks got speared). And unlike many, I like the new skill system.

But oh I truly hate the anomalies as they wrench me out of the Dark Ages in a most unwelcome way. I hope someone eventually mods them out.

The naval battle in AC:O were fun but I do understand why they are not included in AC:V as naval battles in this era & location were indeed very rare & were boarding actions between a handful of ships that only happened in estuaries when they did happen at all. The fact it was almost impossible to interdict Viking ships in the North Sea is pretty much why the Viking invasions of England were even possible.

In quality Valhalla is a step backwards from Odessey, it's far more "cartoonish" and even that could have been much better!
Besides Eivor the characters are not very interesting and looks to animated , the dialog's are boring/simple/uninteresting, lack of humor (Odessey much more fun!)
On the RPG pad ubisoft made a start with Odessey but instead of improvement Valhalla is far worse with the total lack of choices and even if there is one there are no serious effects!
Combat; see many other discussions on this forum!
The coming DLC's are extensions of the main story so we can call them valhalla 2 and 3, in Odessey we had the choice to play the DLC's somewhere within the main story what made a new game+ more interesting so it must be the reason why it wasn't in the planing.
Almost all "new" things are borrowed from other games like the Witcher; even flyting was done in tousaint (fist of fury) cart table comes straight out of Dragon age including the daggers!
If this is the future of the gaming industry i will spent more time fishing than gaming!

I had a similar experience. The first ever AC I've played was Odyssey and I absolutely loved the game so much that I've went ahead and bought Origins. But after playing it for a while I kinda hated it even though it had so much positive reviews. I guess the first impression matters and also the theme matter a lot. Some people love ancient Egypt, some ancient Greece and some vikings. I was very disappointed when I heard about Valhalla back in 2019, I am not a fan of Vikings and I wanted something like ancient Rome or Macedon with Alexander the Great or something after playing Odyssey.

Btw I finished Valhalla and I love it, almost as much as Odyssey. But I don't think anything will ever beat Kassanda and her journey for me.

@n0ir7

after having finished odyssey i couldnt really bring myself to finish origins.
Sure it looks good and all, but was repetitive and missing stuff that i have grown to love in odyssey

I think I like Odyssey more than Valhalla, but I really like Valhalla too. Eivor is a great character and the side characters are really interesting most of the time, too. I also really like the story and most of the side content. I'm hyped for the DLCs.The modern story is much more interesting in Valhalla though. For the first time since Desmond, I'm excited about what's to come for the modern story.

I wish the Norway map was bigger and that we could play more there.