The Thread where I air my grievances with the Assassins' Creed series SPOILERS EVERYWHERE

[Dalisclock]

It always strikes me as weird that some of the French citizens in Unity had British accents. You think a company based in France wouldn’t have a problem hiring French actors to voice French npcs.

Apparently it's more they wanted to make the class differences more distinct. Which is why they ignored the fact that Napoleon wasn't even french, he was Corsican and spoke with an accent his entire life which made a lot of the french look down on him.

 

[Dalisclock]

Finished the Dead Kings DLC for Unity. It's okay, honestly not really as interesting as I was expecting, just a 3 hour sequence of missions on a new map.I have no plans to play AC Valhalla for numerous reasons(Length being a major one, but Ubisoft being shit also being a big factor), so that pretty much wraps it all up.

With that being said, I am briefly going to summerize my gripes with the series as a whole for those who didn't want to wade through all my hot takes on the games that go on for a while.

1. The Modern Day/Frame story started strong but quickly lost the plot, so instead of building to something it's just a series of arcs that never seem to go anywhere because Ubisoft cares more about selling more games then telling good stories. Pretty much every game revolves around finding a thingy to either open a door or just finding the thingy for its own sake to make you get in the animus, Shinji! Or because Desmond is suffering from brain melt and needs to be in the animus to fix brain before brain break permanently. Or because the Templars are using your brain to mine bitcoin because it's cheaper then trying to find a GPU.

2.Likewise, the ISU lore started out interesting but gradually descended into inanity and rote storytelling. They're simultaneously boring, stupid and OP at the same time because the writers can't seem to figure out what the point of this all is other then to provide yet another shiny object for the characters to chase and fight over in the modern and historical sections.

3. The Templar vs. Assassins Conflict rarely rises above an extended griefing competition. The Templars stand for Order but mostly act like dicks because they can, with almost no indication they care about trying to improve anything. The Assassins stand for Freedom but mostly that means they just off people they don't like and/or are Templars and then do very little beyond that, because why bother building something better to fill the power vacuum you just caused? Which of course gives the Templars ample opportunity to move right back in and be dicks again. It's an eternal cycle that keeps on going because nobody ever seems to learn anything or try anything different. As a result I've barely missed it in the more recent games. Sure, Kassandra is a merc killing cultists in ancient greece but honestly it's pretty much the same song and dance as every other game just with the names changed.

4. The Saving Grace is that the historical parts of the game are pretty much always the most interesting part but just how interesting and well executed varies from game to game to the point it might as well be a series of historical settings connected by a series of characters across time and space. That being said I'm pretty sure AC Infinity/Infinite is basically just gonna be AC Fortnight where you subscribe the the platform or whatever and they just add and remove settings and storylines from now until the series becomes unprofitable.

Anyway, Thank you to those who put up with me going on for 7 fucking pages about a series I'm sure 75% of you don't care about.

 

[Hawki]

Anyway, Thank you to those who put up with me going on for 7 fucking pages about a series I'm sure 75% of you don't care about.

For what it's worth, I've enjoyed reading it. I'm afraid I don't have much experience with AC (I've played the first game, read a few of the novels, seen the movie), but it was an enjoyable read. Unfortunately, there's little I can comment on directly.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

Finished the Dead Kings DLC for Unity. It's okay, honestly not really as interesting as I was expecting, just a 3 hour sequence of missions on a new map.I have no plans to play AC Valhalla for numerous reasons(Length being a major one, but Ubisoft being shit also being a big factor), so that pretty much wraps it all up.

With that being said, I am briefly going to summerize my gripes with the series as a whole for those who didn't want to wade through all my hot takes on the games that go on for a while.

1. The Modern Day/Frame story started strong but quickly lost the plot, so instead of building to something it's just a series of arcs that never seem to go anywhere because Ubisoft cares more about selling more games then telling good stories. Pretty much every game revolves around finding a thingy to either open a door or just finding the thingy for its own sake to make you get in the animus, Shinji! Or because Desmond is suffering from brain melt and needs to be in the animus to fix brain before brain break permanently. Or because the Templars are using your brain to mine bitcoin because it's cheaper then trying to find a GPU.

2.Likewise, the ISU lore started out interesting but gradually descended into inanity and rote storytelling. They're simultaneously boring, stupid and OP at the same time because the writers can't seem to figure out what the point of this all is other then to provide yet another shiny object for the characters to chase and fight over in the modern and historical sections.

3. The Templar vs. Assassins Conflict rarely rises above an extended griefing competition. The Templars stand for Order but mostly act like dicks because they can, with almost no indication they care about trying to improve anything. The Assassins stand for Freedom but mostly that means they just off people they don't like and/or are Templars and then do very little beyond that, because why bother building something better to fill the power vacuum you just caused? Which of course gives the Templars ample opportunity to move right back in and be dicks again. It's an eternal cycle that keeps on going because nobody ever seems to learn anything or try anything different. As a result I've barely missed it in the more recent games. Sure, Kassandra is a merc killing cultists in ancient greece but honestly it's pretty much the same song and dance as every other game just with the names changed.

4. The Saving Grace is that the historical parts of the game are pretty much always the most interesting part but just how interesting and well executed varies from game to game to the point it might as well be a series of historical settings connected by a series of characters across time and space. That being said I'm pretty sure AC Infinity/Infinite is basically just gonna be AC Fortnight where you subscribe the the platform or whatever and they just add and remove settings and storylines from now until the series becomes unprofitable.

Anyway, Thank you to those who put up with me going on for 7 fucking pages about a series I'm sure 75% of you don't care about.

Valhalla was pretty long but I think it has the most lackluster ending of the entire series.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Valhalla was pretty long but I think it has the most lackluster ending of the entire series.

So I just finished the main story and killing all of the Order members in this game. While I also did this in AC:Ody and found those ending also kinda lackluster, Valhalla was a new low. The stories don't really have endings at all, you just kind finish the main mission and that's it. No fanfare, no nothing, just a thanks and a pat of the ass.

That being said, now that my 70 hour journey with Valhalla is done, I can agree with what most critics said in that Valhalla is the worst game of the new trilogy. It's core gameplay is still fun, raiding camps is cool, and the moment to moment exploring for extras is the biggest in the series so far. However the side missions, puzzles, and treasure hunts in general are all too generic which is probably due to the vast number of them. There are literally hundred of these things and that's too much. I means that the devs don't have enough time to make anything super interesting because there is too much to include.

I feel like if they had narrowed the focus of this game a bit and kept things to quality over quantity it would have faired the game over all much better.

Many of the main story lines don't make sense and have no real conclusion. Sigard's belief in godhood feels like an excuse to find some other random high tech ruin for no reason. Layla staying behind to help digital Desmond with the branching timelines didn't make any sense and came out of nowhere. And the betrayal of Haytham and having him finish Eivor's story in the animus also was pointless because as far as i could tell it doesn't actually go anywhere.

The general gameplay is still good, but I don't feel like the game was worth investing so much time into. But it by the time I was ready to end the game, I was so many hours deep I figured I should push through to the end just to wrap it up. In hindsight i probably could have just spent more time playing FF14 instead.

Overall I think Odyssey is still my favorite, and Valhalla is the worse game of the new trilogy thusfar.

 

[Dalisclock]

So I just finished the main story and killing all of the Order members in this game. While I also did this in AC:Ody and found those ending also kinda lackluster, Valhalla was a new low. The stories don't really have endings at all, you just kind finish the main mission and that's it. No fanfare, no nothing, just a thanks and a pat of the ass.

That being said, now that my 70 hour journey with Valhalla is done, I can agree with what most critics said in that Valhalla is the worst game of the new trilogy. It's core gameplay is still fun, raiding camps is cool, and the moment to moment exploring for extras is the biggest in the series so far. However the side missions, puzzles, and treasure hunts in general are all too generic which is probably due to the vast number of them. There are literally hundred of these things and that's too much. I means that the devs don't have enough time to make anything super interesting because there is too much to include.

I feel like if they had narrowed the focus of this game a bit and kept things to quality over quantity it would have faired the game over all much better.

Many of the main story lines don't make sense and have no real conclusion. Sigard's belief in godhood feels like an excuse to find some other random high tech ruin for no reason. Layla staying behind to help digital Desmond with the branching timelines didn't make any sense and came out of nowhere. And the betrayal of Haytham and having him finish Eivor's story in the animus also was pointless because as far as i could tell it doesn't actually go anywhere.

The general gameplay is still good, but I don't feel like the game was worth investing so much time into. But it by the time I was ready to end the game, I was so many hours deep I figured I should push through to the end just to wrap it up. In hindsight i probably could have just spent more time playing FF14 instead.

Overall I think Odyssey is still my favorite, and Valhalla is the worse game of the new trilogy thusfar.

Yeah, aside from the length(which was the big deterrent for me after Odyessy being very long as well), I'd heard from other people most of the build up doesn't really lead to anything in the end and for the amount of time it's asking of you, that was more than enough to be a hard no. The raids looked cool and I love the idea of building up the village, but not enough to justify in spite of all that.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

So I just finished the main story and killing all of the Order members in this game. While I also did this in AC:Ody and found those ending also kinda lackluster, Valhalla was a new low. The stories don't really have endings at all, you just kind finish the main mission and that's it. No fanfare, no nothing, just a thanks and a pat of the ass.

That being said, now that my 70 hour journey with Valhalla is done, I can agree with what most critics said in that Valhalla is the worst game of the new trilogy. It's core gameplay is still fun, raiding camps is cool, and the moment to moment exploring for extras is the biggest in the series so far. However the side missions, puzzles, and treasure hunts in general are all too generic which is probably due to the vast number of them. There are literally hundred of these things and that's too much. I means that the devs don't have enough time to make anything super interesting because there is too much to include.

I feel like if they had narrowed the focus of this game a bit and kept things to quality over quantity it would have faired the game over all much better.

Many of the main story lines don't make sense and have no real conclusion. Sigard's belief in godhood feels like an excuse to find some other random high tech ruin for no reason. Layla staying behind to help digital Desmond with the branching timelines didn't make any sense and came out of nowhere. And the betrayal of Haytham and having him finish Eivor's story in the animus also was pointless because as far as i could tell it doesn't actually go anywhere.

The general gameplay is still good, but I don't feel like the game was worth investing so much time into. But it by the time I was ready to end the game, I was so many hours deep I figured I should push through to the end just to wrap it up. In hindsight i probably could have just spent more time playing FF14 instead.

Overall I think Odyssey is still my favorite, and Valhalla is the worse game of the new trilogy thusfar.

Basically the ending of the story is Layla deciding to risk her life to be with a digital version of Desmond in this virtual afterlife and Eivor and her/his brother are stuck in a virtual retelling of Valhalla. Eivor breaks them out and has a battle with that assassin who is supposed to be an incarnation of the idiot Loki. That’s it. It destroys any sense of build up Layla had for this whole trilogy only to end up dead with Desmond. The ending in the historical part of the game doesn’t feel like an ending at all but a mid point to a really long story. It feels so abrupt.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Basically the ending of the story is Layla deciding to risk her life to be with a digital version of Desmond in this virtual afterlife and Eivor and her/his brother are stuck in a virtual retelling of Valhalla. Eivor breaks them out and has a battle with that assassin who is supposed to be an incarnation of the idiot Loki. That’s it. It destroys any sense of build up Layla had for this whole trilogy only to end up dead with Desmond. The ending in the historical part of the game doesn’t feel like an ending at all but a mid point to a really long story. It feels so abrupt.

I wish there was at least some more build up to the ancient machine, something Eivor maybe finds or hunts pieces of keys to throughout the game. Something to make it feel less, "ok this is the part where you find the machine thing that does literal magic". Odyssey handled it WAY better imo and I never finished Origins to know what the end of that game was like, I will be replaying Origins at some point to figure that out though.

Yeah, aside from the length(which was the big deterrent for me after Odyessy being very long as well), I'd heard from other people most of the build up doesn't really lead to anything in the end and for the amount of time it's asking of you, that was more than enough to be a hard no. The raids looked cool and I love the idea of building up the village, but not enough to justify in spite of all that.

The sad part is, the building up the village thing goes nowhere either. No big pay off, nothing special like a piece of gear or anything, just a bunch of vikings saying thanks which they been doing for the entire game so it doesn't mean anything.

Above everything else Valhalla is the game with the most wasted potential. It could have done so much more with so much less, but maybe Covid really fucked the development and they just had to spam garbage around to meet deadline and not make the game empty.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

I wish there was at least some more build up to the ancient machine, something Eivor maybe finds or hunts pieces of keys to throughout the game. Something to make it feel less, "ok this is the part where you find the machine thing that does literal magic". Odyssey handled it WAY better imo and I never finished Origins to know what the end of that game was like, I will be replaying Origins at some point to figure that out though.



The sad part is, the building up the village thing goes nowhere either. No big pay off, nothing special like a piece of gear or anything, just a bunch of vikings saying thanks which they been doing for the entire game so it doesn't mean anything.

Above everything else Valhalla is the game with the most wasted potential. It could have done so much more with so much less, but maybe Covid really fucked the development and they just had to spam garbage around to meet deadline and not make the game empty.

Origins had a more satisfying ending then odyssey and Valhalla. And it does feel like it tied into the overall series very well.

 

[Dalisclock]

Origins had a more satisfying ending then odyssey and Valhalla. And it does feel like it tied into the overall series very well.

My feelings are much the same. Even though origins kinda loses a bit of steam near the end, it still feels overall stronger and more focused the odyssey did. It helps that the game is significantly shorter then Odyssey as well.

The ending of Aya going to Rome to stab Caeser in the forum still felt tacked on though and it's a shame because they could have done it much more organically.

 

[CriticalGaming]

snip

In case you wanted more Valhalla, I got some news for you. https://www.destructoid.com/assassins-creed-valhalla-major-expansion-is-coming-in-2022-date-trailer/

 

[Dalisclock]

In case you wanted more Valhalla, I got some news for you. https://www.destructoid.com/assassins-creed-valhalla-major-expansion-is-coming-in-2022-date-trailer/

I mean, when one of my issues with Valhalla is that it's too fucking long......

 

[CriticalGaming]

I mean, when one of my issues with Valhalla is that it's too fucking long......

Well good news....It's longerrrrrrr nevermind.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Well... I am not used to seeing other gamers give so much thought to what I would call my 2nd favorite game series so that is something. At this point, I only thread the first page but I want to start jumping in bit by bit, so lemme explain why AC means so much to me.
The tl;dr version is AC2 is responsible for me getting back into gaming as an adult and caring it about it enough to become an Escapit+ member and such.

I'm 44 so I got into games as an 80's kid and 90's teen: arcades and the Nintendo-led home console revival, with Super Mario 3, Link to the Past and Street Fighter 2 representing the pinnace of my youngblood gaming life.
I pretty much abandoned solo/serious gaming in the late '90's when I went into college and spent my time with other things (school, work, and other shall we see non-productive pursuits). This means that I pretty much skipped the revolutions in FPS, PC, digital RPG and 3D gaming. While Half-Life, Halo, FF7, GoldenEye, and Baldur's Gate redefined gaming, I was nowhere to be found. To this day, I still can't even play FPS games. I mean sure I would mess around with friends and I had PlayStations that I barely turned on for like Guitar Hero or whatever but that's it. My entertainment interests were more about music (still my #1 thing) and film, boy did I become a film nerd.

in my early '30's I was spending a lot of time alone and I got a cheap PS3 somehow and jumped back into gaming and was floored by the cinematic games of the Uncharted, Assassins Creed, and God of War games. To me, it was like stepping into the future.
But it was AC2 that hooked me so hard that my passion for film energy started to transfer to games as a medium for the greatest art & entertainment other than music. I couldn't believe I'm playing in Italy.. like, the real historical Italy, with the pope and Medecis, and in a way that lets me climb and run everywhere. And the humor, the characters, the wacky conspiracy stories, I was floored. The bits with the puzzles that reveal how the Templars are behind every crazy thing in the world enraptured me.
I have played this game like 20 times and for me it's like how so many can which Goodfellas for the millionth time and love it- I would happily replay that shit right now.

I say all this because my love of AC2 and the franchise is with the complete agreement of all of OP's criticisms. Yeah, the pacing and narrative shortcuts of AC2 are glaring. I just.. don't care, I guess?

Of course I played AC1 and I gotta say, I think that game is also pretty awesome. Sure, as many say it is like a prototype, and there's a lot of stuff they meant to put in and didn't and it's obvious (The Kingdom!). But the setting, story and vibe are actually so amazing. Have you ever tried to play it without HUD? It totally works. It is the only AC game that was designed for that. You can use environment cues to really feel like a shadow-y assassin tracking your target. It's really great and I highly recommend it.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Brotherhood is when some of what made the franchise truly special started to get lost and that probably is directly tied to Patrice Desilets leaving. It was at this point where we lost a promising tight 3 game structure. Brotherhood is the first AC game where the main plot is just a skeleton/excuse for "doing stuff in open-world history" as opposed to a focused narrative that makes any sense (even within its own warped logic). The fact that it's a sequel to a sequel already tells you the franchise is lost narratively and creatively.

Specifically when I encountered two specific parts I knew the story was gone:
1- Subject 16, if you solve all his puzzles. In AC2 it reveals the big central mystery to everything, that humans were created by the precursor race. It's HUGE.
In Brotherhood, you just get some rambling vague bullshit about "Eve."
2- Killing Lucy. That just smacked as a twist for twists' sake to extend the plot. Turns out it was that but also a way to deal with Kristen Bell no longer being available to do future games.

And then Revelations had that amazing opening but also just wheel-spinning in terms of plot.
At this point AC changed for me from being that be-all ultimate everything in gaming to being just another franchise. Here two things happened for me:
1- Despite everything, Ezio become so belove both to me and others that he's iconic. He is like Captain Kirk and Spock- even in lesser things like Revelations or Star Trek V, it is still a joy to spend time with these characters.
2- The plot no longer mattered. AC became like Call of Duty or Doom or whatever- just gimme fun game, you can say whatever with your "story."

This is why I still love the franchise though it's no longer even like a top 5 franchise. Juno, sages, staffs, blah blah blah- I don't give a shit because I stopped caring 10 years ago (!). I still love the setting, and I can clear another thousand maps of icons as long as it is free-running, easy combat and killing and in a historical setting. How much I like an AC game is dependent purely on a) is it is a setting I like more and b) does it f'n work.

The latter is a serious one because AC3 was such a promising setting, especially playing as an indigenous American. New engine, new character- man I was really thinking it would be magic. Instead it's kind of a broken piece of shit. So many unfinished missions and glitches and awkward dialogue and mechanics. Then Unity really reach such epic levels of fail.

People talk about abandoning AC and if I'd of done it, it would have been Unity. It is to this day the only AC game I would have no interest in replaying because of its absymal mechanics. But even that game looks gorgeous. So even though the Origins+ game are grindy Ubisoft shit with boring quest design, I still enjoy them while nodding my head vigorously as I read every single criticism.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

I'm just gonna keep brain-dumping AC thoughts as I continue to catch up on this most excellent thread if y'all don't mind.

Yo I freaking love AC Liberation.

The whole persona thing is so great, I really wish they did more of that stuff in the series.
I only played the PC/console port not on the portable. Sure the mechanics and graphics are more rudimentary. But the character, the setting and some of the missions are way cooler than much of the rest of the series.

You knonw how so many games are like "play it your way" and all that really means is that you try stealth, get caught, then die or murder everybody. Well playing a mission as a slave, aristocrat or assassin would be hella cool.

I foolishly expected such things to be in Unity. My god the hype for that game was so high, and that game was shit I'm still mad about it.

Unity and Syndicate had those missions where you had optional things to do to help you escape or set-up a cool kill and I really like that, I was shattered when Origins came out and it was gone and it back to like "oh just go kill that guy" wtf.

Combining Liberations' persona thing and Unity/Syndicate's big set-piece assassination missions would make for some really amazing gameplay.

I have said such in other forums and the response was "oh you mean Hitman." Ok, maybe. Here's the thing though- I don't like Hitman. I mean, it's just not for me. First of all I love the historical setting of AC and walking around a nightclub or a yacht or whatever just doesn't interest me. Also, the whole parkour/movement thing of AC is great that's not in Hitman.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Black Flag is such an interesting game. I have heard it being the exception for those who don't like the franchise, because of the fun pirate and sailing stuff.

I know liking that more than the main missions is hardly a controversial opinion but the disparity between them is stunning. I wouldn't even mind tailing- it's when there is tailing while listening to important dialogue that drives me up the wall.

Wort/funniest moment: tailing while listening to dialogue in a swamp and there is an optional objective skin 2 alligators. Like yeah I'm gonna skin this alligator real quick surrounded by guards while chasing my enemies secretly. Oy.

But those legendary ship battles- like all of the sudden we get pirate Dark Souls, holy shit they are hard! Then finally the last one in Rogue is impossible for me and it is the only AC thing I gave up on.

The collectibles in BG and Rogue actually offend me. Animus fragments, lol, f*** off, Ubisoft.

The raiding in BF and Rogue can be a mixed bag. I mean I love it mostly because it looks and feels fun but combat got so dumbed down from the already too easy combat of AC3 that it's a button mash fest and it can get annoying. But the sailing and ship fighting is hella cool.

Freedom Cry is so weird- Django Unchained vibes. I still don't understand the actual plot to this day. It was all about this McGuffin box and I never learned what was in it.
It was interesting to hear a couple of black acquaintances delight in playing as an Afro-Carribean protagonist.

Between Freedom Cry and AC3, the franchise does deserve props for representation. One of the great things about AC3 is actually hearing the Mohawk language- I mean where else do you hear that stuff? I recently finished watching a show called Resident Alien that has a native American as a principle character and shows here family sometimes, which is great, but you never hear them speak anything other than English.

Too bad Ubisoft then really screwed the pooch with gender.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Ok I just read the post explaining that the Freedom Cry box leads into Rogue, thanks for that. Even though I played these games like 3x I missed that.

The thing about Evie cleaning up Jacob's mess- yeah I get how that shuts down potentially more interesting gameplay. On the other hand, it does enforce the theme that Jacob and Evie need each other, FWIW.

You know what I think about Syndicate? Nothing. It's... fine. I played it, I guess. It's better than Unity simply by virtue of it not being a constantly broken piece of shit mess. It is like my microwave- it's fine? I dunno, I don't think about my microwave and I don't think about Syndicate.

In an earlier post I explained how AC2 is like the most important piece of art of my 30's. Then they made microwaves.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

As this thread is a spin-off from the hot takes, it's only appropriate for me to drag The Witcher 3 back into it because it has overtaken even AC2 as my GOAT.

Imagine my surprise when I start playing Origins and it has a huge starting area, then big story-based intertwined quests on a map.

Look, I don't know how much of W3's quest structure is innovative, I don't play as many games as some people. All I know is, W3 came out, blew my freaking mind, then AC seemed like it was copying it, but without the actual clever story lines and interesting dynamics. So weird.

What the recent games gained is stability- they run, they play well, they are fun to, as Yahtzee puts it frequently about Persona 5 and other grindy games, run around and do stuff while listening to a podcast. They are like Syndicate in their blandness but a lot more fun to actually play because of the changed mechanics and stunning graphics.

I can play and replay Odyssey over and over again because it's fun and pretty even though I agree with every criticism about its story, dialogue, and characters. It is my bimbo/casual gf of video games. Origins and Valhalla are close enough but just slightly less good for reasons I can't even explain. Maybe Odyssey is just that much sillier.

Sometimes I see being comparing these three games, like this one did this or that better and I'm like... whatever, it's the same game in three different setting.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

I've wanted to make a thread about choosing your gender in video games for forever. It just never seems to be worth the effort.

I thought the way Syndicate did it was fine, because they still wrote everything specifically for Evie and Jacob. Although I could have definitely gone without the ridiculous amount of female enemies who stick out like a sore thumb.

But in Odyssey and I assume Valhalla, it doesn't seem to matter what gender you are. Which sucks because frankly, being a woman back in historical times was obviously not great, so being a female Assassin badass should definitely stand out and lead to some good stories. It also seems like a lot of work, with very little payoff. So much extra voicelines. Unlockables and gear need to be tweaked. And I assume the writing is a little more complicated.

I hardly want to go back to the sausage party that was 2000s to 2010s gaming, but I'd rather they actually make a choice instead of hiding behind a "choose who you want to play as!" gimmick. I guess its yet another "this is what RPGs do so we should do it too" thing, so even less of a fan of that.

God, yes.
For me this is one example of an even larger thing- this obsession with "player choice." For games that involve a traditional narrative storyline, trying to also have player choice is an inherent conflict that dilutes both choice and narrative. But I also must be in the minority opinion because I see so much praise and memes around character creation screens and customization that, I dunno.... it's dumb, IMO.
Some games are true sandboxes like Sims or whatever. But Assassins Creed- no, we're playing written people with specific characteristics, and I want the writers to write me a story, and you can't have story without characters, and things like gender is part of it.

We all know by now that it is Ubisoft's sexism that gave us this bullshit thing about gender choice, ironically.
Aya should have been the playable character in Origins, not Bayek. She actually kills Caeser, works for Cleopatra, and found the Hidden Ones. All of the problems with Kassandra being a mercenary in Odyssey would not be an issue with Aya because now you have a woman working for a woman ruler in secret, and it would make sense and be f'n awesome.
Don't get me wrong, Bayek was rendered and voiced beautifully but that's a credit to the devs and actor (by the way, check out Raised By Wolves to see him in a sci-fi setting, it's a good show).

The way to do representation is to give characters focus and agency and power. Origins should have been Aya, Odyssey should have been Alexios and no Kassandra, and Valhalla should have been just female Eivor and male Odin. Granted, I always choose Kassandra when I replay Odyssey because I just generally choose women when I can because it's nicer to look at.