Grind and Leveling in AC series

[Dalisclock]

So one of the big things people have been criticizing about AC Odyssey is how it's a bit grindy due to the map being controlled using the beef gate(AKA higher level enemies) method, because the enemies get increasingly higher leveled as the you get to certain parts of the map and anything a couple levels above you will be difficult to fight.

Apparently Origins had a similar system but a lot of people apparently feel it wasn't as bad in Origins.

I haven't played Origins or Odyessy yet but I've played most of the other games preceding it(bar Unity because I still can't get myself to plop down money for it, no matter how cheap it gets). I do remember that several of the other gates also use gating methods. Syndicate, which I recently finished, uses a system where story missions and certain parts of the city have recommended levels on a scale of 1-10(in Syndicate 10 is max level) and trying to fight enemies 2 levels above you is painful if not suicidal. While there's only 10 levels progress through, it'll take you much of the game to rank up that far and that's assuming you're actually liberating the burroughs at something resembling a reasonable pace. And since weapons are gated behind levels(not you need the xp to rank up your abilities) you need to level regardless.

I remember Black Flag had enemy levels at sea(I can't remember if the land enemies did as well) and the forts were rated on a difficulty scale, and while you didn't have to take down the forts(except the one during a story mission), it made it much easier to sail across the map unmolested because they created restricted areas around them.

And of course, previous games had those areas protected by Templar towers you had to take down before you could do anything productive in the area, but I don't think they were level gated.

I guess what I'm asking is: Is Odyssey as grindy as it's made out to be? How is it compared to Oirgins or even Syndicate? I didn't think Syndicate was bad as far as grind though I was having fun liberating the map, at least for a bit and I did enough side missions I was pretty much fully leveled before I hit endgame.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I haven't played it, but I played Far Cry 5 so I absolutely understand what Odyssey is doing. I just wrote about this in another thread, but essentially Ubisoft are padding the game artificially by requiring X more time spent. I think Yahtzee called them "fuckabout points" in his Inquisition review. In Far Cry 5, you have a map with three zones, each controlled by one of the antagonist's lieutenants. You have to fuckabout and complete Ubisoft's copy/pasted gameplay to score fuckabout points and when you get enough, you unlock the next story mission.

This isn't the same as an open-world like Morrowind, where you know you are unprepared to tackle an area and so develop your character further to rise to the challenge. This is gameplay without context for its own sake and the only barrier to proceeding with the storyline is put there by the devs, not in-game by the world.

Odyssey is more nefarious however, since, despite being a full price boxed game with multiple different editions, some well over $100, it comes with a shop page tempting you to spend real-money for in-game progress. It has an online shop page IN THE GAME to take your money and not just for cosmetics (player choice, *spit*) but for items and even more interestingly, ways to SKIP the grind they themselves built into the game.

They essentially made an open-world, copy and pasted a bunch of activities like stab one dude or clear an outpost or climb a tower or whatever nebulous bullshit "gameplay" it is. They then locked story progress behind completing hours of this fuckaboutery and THEN gave you a store page where you could pay them real money to SKIP the fucking about. Odyssey's design was compromised from its core outward, to accommodate the store front. They altered the gameplay, the items and progress around the real money shop and then charge you $100 for a shopping cart.

Play the Ezio trilogy or Black Flag, forget this one.

 

[Dalisclock]

Getting really tired of games like that, and it?s bad enough one of my most anticipated games this gen, The Witcher 3, is highly tuned that way. How many damn times does a master Witcher need to relevel himself? Does he simply forget everything he learned every game? Keep his existing skill base and add completely new ones, or better yet just introduce better, more significant gear.

It?s uninspired game design. Base the combat on skill and player-driven improvement vs the game handing you improvements after x amount of time spent on the story or whatever. It?s partly why I?m really getting tired of narrative-driven games, because too often the actual gameplay is only there to serve it.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I haven't played it, but I played Far Cry 5 so I absolutely understand what Odyssey is doing. I just wrote about this in another thread, but essentially Ubisoft are padding the game artificially by requiring X more time spent. I think Yahtzee called them "fuckabout points" in his Inquisition review. In Far Cry 5, you have a map with three zones, each controlled by one of the antagonist's lieutenants. You have to fuckabout and complete Ubisoft's copy/pasted gameplay to score fuckabout points and when you get enough, you unlock the next story mission.

This isn't the same as an open-world like Morrowind, where you know you are unprepared to tackle an area and so develop your character further to rise to the challenge. This is gameplay without context for its own sake and the only barrier to proceeding with the storyline is put there by the devs, not in-game by the world.

Odyssey is more nefarious however, since, despite being a full price boxed game with multiple different editions, some well over $100, it comes with a shop page tempting you to spend real-money for in-game progress. It has an online shop page IN THE GAME to take your money and not just for cosmetics (player choice, *spit*) but for items and even more interestingly, ways to SKIP the grind they themselves built into the game.

They essentially made an open-world, copy and pasted a bunch of activities like stab one dude or clear an outpost or climb a tower or whatever nebulous bullshit "gameplay" it is. They then locked story progress behind completing hours of this fuckaboutery and THEN gave you a store page where you could pay them real money to SKIP the fucking about. Odyssey's design was compromised from its core outward, to accommodate the store front. They altered the gameplay, the items and progress around the real money shop and then charge you $100 for a shopping cart.

Play the Ezio trilogy or Black Flag, forget this one.

And this is why you shouldn't try in-depth critique of something you haven't played. Far Cry 5's abysmal story progression system (that was at once both odiously repetitive and way too eager to force you into the story) has nothing in common with AC: Odyssey's leveling system, which is much more similar to what The Witcher 3 used.

Now, I'm not good at linear progression in open world games, in fact I tend to try and break away from the main story as soon as humanly possible to go do the cool stuff I want to do. This meant that it took me about 20 hours to really get on the main quest, as I decided to leave it alone after I reached the first of the two warring cities (no spoilers here, that's about 15% into the main quest). But at that point I was at a level where I could breeze through the entire main quest even if it didn't hand out any XP. In fact, much like The Witcher 3 before it, AC: Odyssey can be played as a straight shot of just going from story mission to story mission with only the occasional side quest or activity.

If you want to do all the optional side stuff, which there is a metric f*ck ton off, you need to grind out a bit if you're looking to go to a specific region or just start taking it on at the level range you are at. Much like how you can't really go to Skellige in TW3 until you're around level 16, because it is level gated by the fight on the ship and you shouldn't be moving to Novigrad prior to level 10 due to the level gating on the missions. AC: Odyssey is the same, it is not like you are forced to only do shitty, low tier activities until you hit level 50 and then all the really good stuff opens up (though some of the best stuff is obviously end game content). Odyssey presents you with the same activities and varied side quests for the entire game.

Personally, I'm unsure of who would even need to buy the XP or money boosters, because the game is pretty generous in handing out both as long as you keep engaging with the gameplay activities, and if you just want the main story, the game paces you for doing so just by following the main story. But tl dr: You don't know what you are talking about.

For the OP: Grindy is a nebulous term. Arguably, as long as you enjoy the gameplay offered it isn't grindy but the player engaging in the core gameplay loop. I never felt as if the game forced me to do side activities or quests, but I did a lot of them because I liked doing them. So no, if you are just looking to experience the main quest the game isn't very grindy. If you want to reach the level cap but don't like the gameplay, why are you even playing?

 

[Dalisclock]

I haven't played it, but I played Far Cry 5 so I absolutely understand what Odyssey is doing. I just wrote about this in another thread, but essentially Ubisoft are padding the game artificially by requiring X more time spent. I think Yahtzee called them "fuckabout points" in his Inquisition review. In Far Cry 5, you have a map with three zones, each controlled by one of the antagonist's lieutenants. You have to fuckabout and complete Ubisoft's copy/pasted gameplay to score fuckabout points and when you get enough, you unlock the next story mission.

This isn't the same as an open-world like Morrowind, where you know you are unprepared to tackle an area and so develop your character further to rise to the challenge. This is gameplay without context for its own sake and the only barrier to proceeding with the storyline is put there by the devs, not in-game by the world.

Odyssey is more nefarious however, since, despite being a full price boxed game with multiple different editions, some well over $100, it comes with a shop page tempting you to spend real-money for in-game progress. It has an online shop page IN THE GAME to take your money and not just for cosmetics (player choice, *spit*) but for items and even more interestingly, ways to SKIP the grind they themselves built into the game.

They essentially made an open-world, copy and pasted a bunch of activities like stab one dude or clear an outpost or climb a tower or whatever nebulous bullshit "gameplay" it is. They then locked story progress behind completing hours of this fuckaboutery and THEN gave you a store page where you could pay them real money to SKIP the fucking about. Odyssey's design was compromised from its core outward, to accommodate the store front. They altered the gameplay, the items and progress around the real money shop and then charge you $100 for a shopping cart.

Play the Ezio trilogy or Black Flag, forget this one.

And this is why you shouldn't try in-depth critique of something you haven't played. Far Cry 5's abysmal story progression system (that was at once both odiously repetitive and way too eager to force you into the story) has nothing in common with AC: Odyssey's leveling system, which is much more similar to what The Witcher 3 used.

Now, I'm not good at linear progression in open world games, in fact I tend to try and break away from the main story as soon as humanly possible to go do the cool stuff I want to do. This meant that it took me about 20 hours to really get on the main quest, as I decided to leave it alone after I reached the first of the two warring cities (no spoilers here, that's about 15% into the main quest). But at that point I was at a level where I could breeze through the entire main quest even if it didn't hand out any XP. In fact, much like The Witcher 3 before it, AC: Odyssey can be played as a straight shot of just going from story mission to story mission with only the occasional side quest or activity.

If you want to do all the optional side stuff, which there is a metric f*ck ton off, you need to grind out a bit if you're looking to go to a specific region or just start taking it on at the level range you are at. Much like how you can't really go to Skellige in TW3 until you're around level 16, because it is level gated by the fight on the ship and you shouldn't be moving to Novigrad prior to level 10 due to the level gating on the missions. AC: Odyssey is the same, it is not like you are forced to only do shitty, low tier activities until you hit level 50 and then all the really good stuff opens up (though some of the best stuff is obviously end game content). Odyssey presents you with the same activities and varied side quests for the entire game.

Personally, I'm unsure of who would even need to buy the XP or money boosters, because the game is pretty generous in handing out both as long as you keep engaging with the gameplay activities, and if you just want the main story, the game paces you for doing so just by following the main story. But tl dr: You don't know what you are talking about.

For the OP: Grindy is a nebulous term. Arguably, as long as you enjoy the gameplay offered it isn't grindy but the player engaging in the core gameplay loop. I never felt as if the game forced me to do side activities or quests, but I did a lot of them because I liked doing them. So no, if you are just looking to experience the main quest the game isn't very grindy. If you want to reach the level cap but don't like the gameplay, why are you even playing?

Yeah, this is more of an answer to the question I asked. I mentioned in my main post about the level gating/beef gating and it's something that happens in a lot of games, not just the new AC games.

Some people have said you pretty much have to do a very large amount of the side-quests to be able to be leveled enough to do the main story missions, while other people have said it's nearly not that bad and you should be fine as long as you're doing some side-questing on the side(which honestly applies to a lot of RPGs).

Since having to be a certain level to tackle various points in the story(and thus having to do extra activities to ensure said levels are met) tends to be s staple of RPGs with levels in general, is odessy excessive on that scale? Is it bad, compared to say, syndicate, which I didn't think had a terrible difficult curve and also has a link to the e-store with a stat booster for sale in the main menu?

 

[Dalisclock]

I

Play the Ezio trilogy or Black Flag, forget this one.

I did mention how Black Flag has leveled enemies, at least at sea, correct? And you were encouraged to level up your ship so you could face the higher level enemies in combat.
AC has had leveled enemies at least that far back, and defiantly implemented for syndicate as far as story mission recommendation. Which is why I'm curious why Odyssey is getting so much flak for this when it's been part of the series for a while now, thus is Odyssey excessive in that regard? Or does it fall in line with the previous games as far as the difficultly/leveling curve is concerned?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

And this is why you shouldn't try in-depth critique of something you haven't played. Far Cry 5's abysmal story progression system (that was at once both odiously repetitive and way too eager to force you into the story) has nothing in common with AC: Odyssey's leveling system, which is much more similar to what The Witcher 3 used.

I do not need to have played it to know *precisely* how it works. I know exactly how Odyssey works and am completely capable of criticising it. I will always reject the argument that someone has to have played something to know if it's good, bad, how it works, or at the very least whether it's something they would like.

I didn't say they were mechanically identical, but highlighted that the story is similarly gated behind the "fuckabout" activities. Just as FC5, just as Andromeda, just as Inquisition, the story is locked until so much time is spent doing filler content. Whether it's called XP, fuckabout points, reputation, influence or viability points is irrelevant; it's a different name for the same thing.

The reason Odyssey is more Insidious however is that it contains a real money store, in a game people paid a lot for, to skip the very grind Ubisoft intentionally designed in. SW Battlefront 2 did it with lootcrates, so did Shadow of War; all games specifically designed around the real money store (tho the last two were later removed, requiring a complete rebalance of progression as a result).

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Which is why I'm curious why Odyssey is getting so much flak for this when it's been part of the series for a while now, thus is Odyssey excessive in that regard? Or does it fall in line with the previous games as far as the difficultly/leveling curve is concerned?

Well to be more specific then, it's probably two factors: the amount of grind/filler content is much higher and secondly, the addition of the real money store selling opportunities to skip the very filler content Ubisoft forces the player to persevere thru.

A better game would not need the filler content. It would have a focused, enjoyable campaign from start to finish with the open-world serving as an immersive setting for the story and action. The filler content exists for two reasons: padding and selling the real-money shizzle. I couldn't face the second and third zones in FC5 after the first one, knowing how much more grind was ahead.

Note, I'm talking specifically about shallow, nebulous filler "content", copy/pasted hollow stuff that is gameplay without context. I think it's fairly obvious that I'm not saying non-critical content is bad. Well written sidequests add immersion, introduce new characters, flesh out the world and can be rewarding with their own self-contained stories. Minigames are fine, the odd distraction and a bit of variety is great.

But killing lots of enemies for XP or repeating shallow things like climbing towers and clearing more outposts is unimaginative and can be boring. I have played D3/PoE so it's not that I'm against mindlessly killing shit once in a while, this is a different thing. This is supposedly a "AAA" full priced game doing what F2P and MMOs do. And there's no excuse for it. AssCreed as a franchise exists solely so Ubi can release a new one every year. You think it costs them so much? Same engine, assets and even mechanics like Black Flag's boat are still in the 11th title. It's the most budget "AAA" game there is.

 

[sXeth]

I

Play the Ezio trilogy or Black Flag, forget this one.

I did mention how Black Flag has leveled enemies, at least at sea, correct? And you were encouraged to level up your ship so you could face the higher level enemies in combat.
AC has had leveled enemies at least that far back, and defiantly implemented for syndicate as far as story mission recommendation. Which is why I'm curious why Odyssey is getting so much flak for this when it's been part of the series for a while now, thus is Odyssey excessive in that regard? Or does it fall in line with the previous games as far as the difficultly/leveling curve is concerned?

They had levelled enemies since AC2, sure they didn't flash up level bars, and the stealth kills were 100%, but if you went into direct combat with the guys in Venice without ever upgrading your gear/health you'd be toast. To my recollection, even the first AC had one town with much more dangerous soldiers that you needed to get more health to deal with (though you could get by if you mastered the counter attacks)

Other then the fashionable bandwagoning hate for Ubisoft, the main factor is the microtransactions. Which of course raises the question, is the game grindy by basic design, or was it made grindy post-design to get you to shell out cash.

Destiny for instance, has microtransactions, and is currently in the most ludicrously grindy state its ever been. But the micotransactions don't bypass that grind at all, so its clearly their own Time=Content Fallacy design, and not just grubbing about for your dollar.

 

[Cette]

If you're dicking about with side quests in each region as you wander into them for story purposes without necessarily scouring the region you'll basically always be in level range for the A plot.

However the second you find a plot thread you're really compelled by and try to follow it to the exlusion of all else you will hit beef gates. This didn't happen to me until level 45 of a possible 50 so it wasn't too bad but I always did a ton of side content and still hit it. That and it can be ultra annoying that some level 50 content is revealed to you as early as level 25 and you just have to sigh and say "guess I'll get to that in 40 hours."

So not as bad as some people are saying but not the silky smooth curve a lot of apologists are throwing out either.

Should note I overall quite liked it.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Since having to be a certain level to tackle various points in the story(and thus having to do extra activities to ensure said levels are met) tends to be s staple of RPGs with levels in general, is odessy excessive on that scale? Is it bad, compared to say, syndicate, which I didn't think had a terrible difficult curve and also has a link to the e-store with a stat booster for sale in the main menu?

I barely noticed it in Syndicate. But as I said, I went off the rails, around level 15 or so, and only went back to the main quest around the early-40's level wise. Cette has the right of it, in that it isn't silky smooth, but you don't have to put in hours of busywork just to "unlock" the next story mission. I'd prefer to see it as the game encouraging you to actually try out all it has on offer, instead of just blazing through the main story.

I do not need to have played it to know *precisely* how it works. I know exactly how Odyssey works and am completely capable of criticising it. I will always reject the argument that someone has to have played something to know if it's good, bad, how it works, or at the very least whether it's something they would like.

Actually, since what you wrote about Odyssey was completely incorrect, you don't know how Odyssey works (obviously). That also means that most of your criticism is invalid, as it wasn't relevant, in fact it was aimed at things that doesn't even exist in the game. I am with you on the idea that you can criticize something you haven't played, but in order to do so you need to actually know about and understand the game you are criticizing. Right now, you are doubling down on being objectively wrong about the gameplay design of Odyssey, while claiming that you are actually right and has it all figured out.

I didn't say they were mechanically identical, but highlighted that the story is similarly gated behind the "fuckabout" activities. Just as FC5, just as Andromeda, just as Inquisition, the story is locked until so much time is spent doing filler content. Whether it's called XP, fuckabout points, reputation, influence or viability points is irrelevant; it's a different name for the same thing.

Except it isn't. FC5 was all about mucking around in the game until you reached an arbitrary point limit, at which point you got force-fed story. Odyssey occasionally requires you to do a few side missions or side activities so that you stay leveled up for the main quest. The first time this will happen, if you just do main quests, happens about 40% into the main quest, or some good 20-30 hours in. This isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination, as the game is designed on the idea that you will go about the open world and sample the other activities. Compared to all your above examples, Odyssey is really tame in how it gates the main quest. I know, because unlike you I've played the game and have gotten plenty of time to see this in action.

The reason Odyssey is more Insidious however is that it contains a real money store, in a game people paid a lot for, to skip the very grind Ubisoft intentionally designed in. SW Battlefront 2 did it with lootcrates, so did Shadow of War; all games specifically designed around the real money store (tho the last two were later removed, requiring a complete rebalance of progression as a result).

You know, I understand why people think the built in micro transactions to speed up gameplay progression are shit and insidious. In another game I'd have been much more critical of them. But Odyssey, just like Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, is obviously not balanced with the micro transactions in mind. Just by playing the game you get tons of XP and money, and consistent play will reward you with roughly a level an hour if you mix up side quests, side activities and main quests. That's not too bad if you consider that the game has content for over 100 hours of committed playtime (I hit max level at around 50 hours in, with about 1/4rd of the map completely unexplored and loads of side quests passed over).

More importantly, unlike BF2 and SoW, Odyssey provides you all the good stuff in game. You can't upgrade the Spear of Leonidas or get most of the legendary armor sets without doing the Cult of Cosmos side activities. The best weapons in game are obtained from Legendary Monsters and a bunch of side quests. What the in-game story offers is never as good as what you can get in game, and everything in the story is store exclusive, meaning you can't bribe your way around doing fighting the Minotaur if you want its' axe.

And this is once more why you are wrong to criticize something you haven't played and thus doesn't fully understand. Like AC: Unity, AC: Syndicate and DE:MD before it, Odyssey seems to have added the in-game story as more of an afterthought, not as something integral to the mechanics (I did play BF2 and can absolutely tell the difference between getting upgrades in lootboxes and Odyssey's "here are a bunch of skins for your ship, buy one?"). If you had played the game you'd see this, but you are too wrapped up in your moral outrage against micro transactions that you'd rather bash a game you haven't played based entirely on your mental image of the game, as opposed to what's actually going on in game.

 

[Something Amyss]

So one of the big things people have been criticizing about AC Odyssey is how it's a bit grindy due to the map being controlled using the beef gate(AKA higher level enemies) method, because the enemies get increasingly higher leveled as the you get to certain parts of the map and anything a couple levels above you will be difficult to fight.

Apparently Origins had a similar system but a lot of people apparently feel it wasn't as bad in Origins.

Origins had less health on your general enemy, most died to one assassination if at your level or below, same with headshots. Most abilities weren't linked to your adrenaline meter, which probably also made combat easier. Also, not having a shield in this one makes a huge difference.

It's not leveling or even level gating that's necessarily the problem. They've extended combat by making people damage sponges and slowed down the XP grind, while locking auto-level to a point. Beefgating, if slightly tweaked, could arguably be the bigger problem: combat has now become tedious in my mind. I always preferred to avoid it, but it's harder to avoid and more annoying to be in. This persists, however, even if you have several levels of advantage over your enemy.

People have defended this by comparing it to Dark Souls and...I just don't care. I'm being told to better optimise gear that is heavily based on RNG in a game that dissuades upgrading good pieces. I'm being told that people beat Dark Souls games with no armour and that's great, but I didn't buy a Souls game and I don't really want to chip away at a bad guy for ten minutes or be hit by rubber band attacks because the supposed hitbox combat doesn't necessarily play out like that.

I barely noticed the levels in Syndicate, but the Hidden Blade was still a reliable way to dispatch enemies.

I do think the real problem is the payment method. You either have to start doing all the sidequests to keep up with level or pay ten bucks to get a better XP progression via a boost. And while boosts (got one free from something, don't remember what) make the game more playable, they still don't solve the "time to kill" problem because damage and health upgrades are fairly trivial compared to the last game.

Syndicate had MTs, but they were paid for with a currency you could earn in game. Origins went a step further and locked the currency to a payment, but stuck to cosmetic items that you could eventually earn in-game and weapons that were good, but not necessarily any more game breaking than other legendaries.

Odyssey went a step further and throttled the bandwidth and told Charlie 'just one more nickel' once he was already on the train.

I'm inclined to agree with Angry Joe in that this is why I dislike MTs as a principle, because it never stop[s at a reasonable place. MTs in the prior two games were fine as far as I remember, and largely trivial as far as the game goes. Now things are harder to kill, gear is harder o upgrade, and they have dat wallet open to SELL us back that experience.

 

[Elfgore]

So, for Origins. You snowballed by about ten hours in if you did most of the content. You'd be two or three levels above if not higher. I never felt any grind.

About ten hours into Odyessy, I'm at the second main area after the game opens up and you get your ship. It's 12-14 and I'm currently 13 as I entered it. This is me doing all points of interest, side quests, and a few timed quests. So as of now, I'm having to do all the content to be slightly above par. We'll see what happens as we go on.

So no, so far I've not had to change my viewpoint of "do every side quest and location" to stay leveled.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, for Origins. You snowballed by about ten hours in if you did most of the content. You'd be two or three levels above if not higher. I never felt any grind.

About ten hours into Odyessy, I'm at the second main area after the game opens up and you get your ship. It's 12-14 and I'm currently 13 as I entered it. This is me doing all points of interest, side quests, and a few timed quests. So as of now, I'm having to do all the content to be slightly above par. We'll see what happens as we go on.

So no, so far I've not had to change my viewpoint of "do every side quest and location" to stay leveled.

Oh god, the only region I completed close to 100% by the end of the story was Siwa, and that's basically because I have a tendency to do all the missions and side objectives in area 1 of games. Then I get bored and start wandering. I was over-leveled for most of Origins, and I was leaving a lot of stuff behind. By the time I hit max level, I still had maybe half the content left to do, including a ton of side quests. And...I did them all because I found Origins to be so fun. This is the only Platinum for an AC game I've ever got. It was a pleasure to play, TBH.

One of the telling things to me ios that Origins had an overflow XP bar. I spent so much time and overleveled so many times and ended up with all the skills plus numerous levels in the passives. I did this because I wanted to. I'm level 19 in Odyssey, and I don't even want to keep filling that XP bar.

Other then the fashionable bandwagoning hate for Ubisoft, the main factor is the microtransactions. Which of course raises the question, is the game grindy by basic design, or was it made grindy post-design to get you to shell out cash.

I'm assuming the latter, but it could be the former, because apparently 70 hours of padding to make a 100 hour game is something RPG fans "want"--which came as a shock to me.

By the way, I know the bandwagoning thing isn't aimed at everyone, but consider that much of the backlash may come from fans who just dislike these practices in their games. Off the top of my head, I own every AC except Unity, both Watch Dogs games, both Crews, the Division, Ghost Recon Wildlinds, Far Cry Primal (which I bought after Odyssey). Not only is that off the topof my head, it excludes anything that might have been a minor title rather than a tentpole (I forgot I had Grown Home or whatever it's called, for example).

Speaking only for myself, my hatred of Ubisoft comes from their kitchen sink approach and their monetisation of franchises I like. The mnonetisation I've seen in action since at least the Division has soured me on them quite a bit, to the point I initially skipped Origin and only bought it later in a sale because I read they'd toned back their scummy practices. The Division and wildlands both managed to monetise features originally advertised as part of the game for launch, AC has MT creep like crazy, and I'm still wary about buying any Ubi game on PC because their DRM has screwed me over before. I bought Odyssey on the wave of enjoyment I got from Origins, which was probably not the best decision I've ever made.

I'm sure there are people bandwagoning (especially since Jim Sterling has gone after them), but I wonder how many are and how many are just tired of them screwing up fun games.

 

[sXeth]

So, for Origins. You snowballed by about ten hours in if you did most of the content. You'd be two or three levels above if not higher. I never felt any grind.

About ten hours into Odyessy, I'm at the second main area after the game opens up and you get your ship. It's 12-14 and I'm currently 13 as I entered it. This is me doing all points of interest, side quests, and a few timed quests. So as of now, I'm having to do all the content to be slightly above par. We'll see what happens as we go on.

So no, so far I've not had to change my viewpoint of "do every side quest and location" to stay leveled.

Oh god, the only region I completed close to 100% by the end of the story was Siwa, and that's basically because I have a tendency to do all the missions and side objectives in area 1 of games. Then I get bored and start wandering. I was over-leveled for most of Origins, and I was leaving a lot of stuff behind. By the time I hit max level, I still had maybe half the content left to do, including a ton of side quests. And...I did them all because I found Origins to be so fun. This is the only Platinum for an AC game I've ever got. It was a pleasure to play, TBH.

One of the telling things to me ios that Origins had an overflow XP bar. I spent so much time and overleveled so many times and ended up with all the skills plus numerous levels in the passives. I did this because I wanted to. I'm level 19 in Odyssey, and I don't even want to keep filling that XP bar.

Other then the fashionable bandwagoning hate for Ubisoft, the main factor is the microtransactions. Which of course raises the question, is the game grindy by basic design, or was it made grindy post-design to get you to shell out cash.

I'm assuming the latter, but it could be the former, because apparently 70 hours of padding to make a 100 hour game is something RPG fans "want"--which came as a shock to me.

By the way, I know the bandwagoning thing isn't aimed at everyone, but consider that much of the backlash may come from fans who just dislike these practices in their games. Off the top of my head, I own every AC except Unity, both Watch Dogs games, both Crews, the Division, Ghost Recon Wildlinds, Far Cry Primal (which I bought after Odyssey). Not only is that off the topof my head, it excludes anything that might have been a minor title rather than a tentpole (I forgot I had Grown Home or whatever it's called, for example).

Speaking only for myself, my hatred of Ubisoft comes from their kitchen sink approach and their monetisation of franchises I like. The mnonetisation I've seen in action since at least the Division has soured me on them quite a bit, to the point I initially skipped Origin and only bought it later in a sale because I read they'd toned back their scummy practices. The Division and wildlands both managed to monetise features originally advertised as part of the game for launch, AC has MT creep like crazy, and I'm still wary about buying any Ubi game on PC because their DRM has screwed me over before. I bought Odyssey on the wave of enjoyment I got from Origins, which was probably not the best decision I've ever made.

I'm sure there are people bandwagoning (especially since Jim Sterling has gone after them), but I wonder how many are and how many are just tired of them screwing up fun games.

Oh theres reasonable complaints and then there's for instance the "LOL everythings copy paste". If the outposts in Far Cry 5 (which has a inane narrative structure) are copy-paste, then so is every shrine/puzzle in Breath of the Wild, or every dungeon in Skyrim. (If I was going to level that complaint at any of the Ubi-titles I played, it would be Origins, which had a terrible habit of reusing the same (not copied somewhere else, literally the same building(s)) outpost for up to 6 side quests).. There's obvously room for complaints, but there's also people who've clearly watched too many of those "Game was murdered" youtube videos.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh theres reasonable complaints and then there's for instance the "LOL everythings copy paste". If the outposts in Far Cry 5 (which has a inane narrative structure) are copy-paste, then so is every shrine/puzzle in Breath of the Wild, or every dungeon in Skyrim. (If I was going to level that complaint at any of the Ubi-titles I played, it would be Origins, which had a terrible habit of reusing the same (not copied somewhere else, literally the same building(s)) outpost for up to 6 side quests).. There's obvously room for complaints, but there's also people who've clearly watched too many of those "Game was murdered" youtube videos.

Not played Fary Cry 5 or BotW, but Skyrim's dungeons are copy-pasted and lazy. That it's also a valid criticism of other games doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism here. I mean, there's also the issue that the games are potentially different, as people apparently buy Skyrim for mods (and complain about how horrible vanilla TES is...) or chopping wood, but it's sort of a reality that Bethesda/Obsidian and certain other games are sheltered by a cult of hype more than anything else. RDR2 is the best game of the century, 200000000/10 because it may handle like crap, but horse testes do things in weather. Skyrim is teh best because you can roleplay a half-cat lumberjack and never ever ever touch the story or any other content omgsoimmersive. There;'s a large set of gamers who will forgive any and all failings--in Skyrim's case, right up to corrupted game saves--if you give them some sort of detail to fawn over. Hell, I've heard Far Cry defended because you can befriend a bear and a mountain lion or something.

Point is, there's lazy copypasting in Skyrim, too. It doesn't negate the criticism in Far Cry, though I haven't played it so I don't know how bad it is in FC. I know it can be bad in Ubisoft games, though, with my friends and I saying "haven't we done this one already?" in Wildlands, and with Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey having some pretty identical sites (including RUINS).

(If I was going to level that complaint at any of the Ubi-titles I played, it would be Origins, which had a terrible habit of reusing the same (not copied somewhere else, literally the same building(s)) outpost for up to 6 side quests)

Like that. but it's not the only offender. The Division was so bad at this as well, and don't get me started on Rocksmith...I keep playing the same tracks over and over!

...kidding aside, this seems pretty common in Ubi titles, so it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it was a thing in FC. That others get away with it is rarely an excuse, though. Rockstar/Bethesda/Obsidian can release utterly broken games and still be GOTY material. It's mopre a sign we need to get off thew hype train. Nintendo probably could, too, but i don't remember the last game they made with significant breakage. I men, they did get praise for Star Fox Zero and other dumb ideas, so maybe that counts.

Outside of specific areas (New York Ciy, San Fran), the Crew and Crew 2 copypaste a lot of assets. One of the Watch Dogs games was particularly egregious (think it was 1). FC might not be as bad, but it's what Ubisoft has become known for and pretty fairly. Once that happens, it becomes hard to unsee. But again, I can't speak to the specifics in this one game.

Don't know what "game was murdered" videos are. Outside of a couple message boards and some specific content creators, I tend to avoid almost all gaming videos and a lot of nerd culture videos in general. I don't need to feel (more) embarrassed for playing video games in my 30s or liking Star Wars.

 

[sXeth]

*snipped*

Well it comes down to what you define as copy paste in that instance. Given that we have games that (for better or worse) have actual copy-paste stuff (No Mans Sky, which for whatever reason couldn't procedurally generate outposts, and at least initially had a very small pool of them that it pulled from), its quite the exaggeration to put forth that stuff cobbled together out of similar assets (which is always going to happen because of finite space/time/etc).

I'd be surprised if there is actual duplicate ruins in Origins, but certainly the fairly minimal aesthetic variety will make it seem that way. Skyrim might have a dozen necromancer forts in it, but they do have individual designs. Wildlands problem is that there's little or no narrative context for most of your action, so yeah, one car chase feels much the same as another. Reality-based games are going to suffer more from it, because reality's boring. While more fantastical takes can offer much more distinct visuals and settings.

Don't know what "game was murdered" videos are. Outside of a couple message boards and some specific content creators, I tend to avoid almost all gaming videos and a lot of nerd culture videos in general. I don't need to feel (more) embarrassed for playing video games in my 30s or liking Star Wars.

Search that on youtube, you'll probably get the gist. Jim Sterling's kind of the format, but he's generally decent for pointing out his own hyperbole, and I've never really noted him voicing something that I know is patently wrong about a game I'm familiar with. There are myriad similar style videos invariably done by some guy in a 800 dollar gaming chair, reporting on news, and basically vomiting random speculation and twitter takes, or half-contexted bits though. Its not even always "THIS GAME WAS MURDERED" or "WHY THE DIVISION SUCKS NOW", they even delve into "THIS GAME IS REDEEMED TO GREATNESS" on equally flimsy nonsense.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm gonna say I'm not super thrilled by Ubisofts tendency to homogenize all their game mechanics across series(the reason "The Ubisoft Game" exists as a term) nor love of having the online bits of the AC games creeping into the SP offline portions moreso with each new title. Also, Uplay can go to hell.

I guess part of the issue is that this series, and Ubisoft games in general, have always had this tendency to have the main story missions and then a bunch of extra stuff that is either completely optional or technically optional but not really. The fluff, so to speak. Collecting the flags in AC1, finding all the glyphs/feathers in AC2, collecting the sea shanties/beer bottles/code fragments in whatever game seem to appeal to the collectors in the audience.

Then there's the not technically required but the game is just really, really hard if you don't do it because it's linked to character/equipment upgrades in some way. That would be renovating the villa/climbing the damn towers/taking over the forts/liberating the city sections/etc, all of which presumably supports the main quest in some way but is really just another form of fucking about in between story missions to pad out the game. Even the original AC had these bullshit sections between the really good bits(the 9 assassinations) where you did 3 random-ish quests(so boring I can barely remember) for your handler in that city before you were allowed to go attack your target.

It can be interpreted as either Ubisoft not so subtly encouraging you to do the side content or just taking a page from GTA/Saints Row to put a bunch of stuff in the game and letting the player pick their preferred activities to fuck around with between plot missions, and if that's what AC fans really want out of the series. Let's be honest, a lot of people seemed to dig all of the pirate activities in Black Flag, despite falling into that same category of just more fucking off to do between story missions, and ironically most people liked that stuff more then the AC stuff in that case(though the bizarre prevalence of tailing/eavesdropping missions was a notable factor here) and Syndicate was less about a compelling story then engaging in a bunch of Victorian Batman assassinations(you know, if Victorian Batman murdered people) in between rooftop sightseeing.

And since AC seems to be still unsure what it wants to be at this point in time(other then adventures in the ancient world and we'll see how long they stay on that train), maybe it's worth asking what people want out of the series now that they've practically thrown the assasin/templar story-overboard(since presumably niether the Assassins or the Templars exist in 500BC, unless this is something that I've been misinformed about) along with any semblance of a notable present day linking story. Is it just historical sandbox adventuring from here on out? Does Ubisoft have any plans to provide something resembling a continuing narrative like the previous games did(One can easily link Black Flag to every game that takes place after that in the series, even if it's only a small connection. I'm not sure if Origins or Odyssey have anything close to that).