Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,038
It doesn’t look like I’ll be playing today 
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
- Thread starter Dirk Diggler
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,932
It doesn’t look like I’ll be playing today
How come ?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,038
My copy from Ubisoft hasn’t arrived. You’d think they’d get it to you on time.
Soldato
Is HDR broke? Can't seem to get it to work.
And the game is stuttering and lagging really bad too.
And the game is stuttering and lagging really bad too.
Ive been playing for about 3 hours so far and im still wandering around Norway. Ive turned all HUD options "Off" to give me that need to explore and get lost in the world.
This is the issue, Ubisoft just cannot create a living / organic world at all. Sure it can be 2394867km², but its so lifeless, souless and dull. Animals are skitting around like absolute lunatics, they are so badly implemented. Couple this with gormless looking characters and below par voice acting. Its your typical Ubisoft game once again. Cut and paste and get away with it. And dont get me started on the Ai, they are absolutely retarded.....
But, its a new and shiny game so i want to play it. But im not invested in the characters at all and i bet i wont be in another few hours time. Its time Ubisoft shifted the script writers and actors to one side and got other people in. For all of RDR2 story issues (mainly Dutch being a ******* and it being drawn out a bit), Rockstar absolutely wipe the floor with a living / breathing world and characters that you can really beleive in.
Graphically its ok, nothing to marvel at (3440x1400). There is something odd with the sound as well, it just sounds strange in certain locations and situations.
Im glad i didnt plough £50+ into this and WD:Legion for that matter, because i dont think either of them are worth it. The Ubisoft+ for £12.99 for these two are worth it for the month but thats about it.
I'll still play it, i'll still try and get into it. But if this is the last one of the series or the last one on this engine. Thank **** for that. Because this predictable ship has sailed far enough !
This is the issue, Ubisoft just cannot create a living / organic world at all. Sure it can be 2394867km², but its so lifeless, souless and dull. Animals are skitting around like absolute lunatics, they are so badly implemented. Couple this with gormless looking characters and below par voice acting. Its your typical Ubisoft game once again. Cut and paste and get away with it. And dont get me started on the Ai, they are absolutely retarded.....
But, its a new and shiny game so i want to play it. But im not invested in the characters at all and i bet i wont be in another few hours time. Its time Ubisoft shifted the script writers and actors to one side and got other people in. For all of RDR2 story issues (mainly Dutch being a ******* and it being drawn out a bit), Rockstar absolutely wipe the floor with a living / breathing world and characters that you can really beleive in.
Graphically its ok, nothing to marvel at (3440x1400). There is something odd with the sound as well, it just sounds strange in certain locations and situations.
Im glad i didnt plough £50+ into this and WD:Legion for that matter, because i dont think either of them are worth it. The Ubisoft+ for £12.99 for these two are worth it for the month but thats about it.
I'll still play it, i'll still try and get into it. But if this is the last one of the series or the last one on this engine. Thank **** for that. Because this predictable ship has sailed far enough !
I think I'll give it a miss for now, doesn't seem like I'd enjoy it as much as Origins and the engine is getting a bit long in the tooth.
If it's less repetitive and copy&paste than Odyssey then I'll give it a go at some point, though horse riding and overall animations might be a bit of a tough sell after RDR2.
If it's less repetitive and copy&paste than Odyssey then I'll give it a go at some point, though horse riding and overall animations might be a bit of a tough sell after RDR2.
So here is my continued opinions (see earlier in the thread for my opinions after 3 hours)...
I've now played 7 hours and am still in Norway but I have to say that the more I play the more I am clicking with it. The combat is becoming really rather enjoyable and you can string together some pretty awesome looking combos. Getting a little tired of the snowy landscape but I suspect I must be nearing the end of Norway now so I can get on to the bread and butter of the game, England. Valhalla has definitely been a slow burner for me, I was almost instantly hooked with Origins and Odyssey but its taken me several hours (and getting used to the combat changes) to feel the hook with Valhalla but now that I am feeling it I'm very much enjoying the game. Its janky and yes, its rather buggy, but you know what, I'm still enjoying myself and having fun. At this point I would still rate the current AC trilogy as Odyssey > Origins > Valhalla , but Valhalla is closing the gap on Origins and there are some mechanics in Valhalla that I really wish we had in Origins and Odyssey. I'd still rate it as an 8/10 after 7 hours, but its moving up the decimal places on that 8 score.
A general way to look at it is that this is Ubisoft and AC (as AC is now) , frankly if you didnt like the recent AC titles nothing about Valhalla is going to alter your mind and you wont like this either. If you did like Origins and Odyssey then you will probably like Valhalla, though perhaps with some caveats, and if you loved Origins and Odyssey (as I did, over 400 hours in the two games combined, which as I work to a £ per hour method of rating value for money was FAR more than the £s spent) then you're likely to also like Valhalla. Bottom line is, I spent £65 on the game or thereabouts , for the gold edition, and I will easily get 65 hours of fun out of it, so its a hit for me. All that remains now is to see how much of a hit and whether it can move up in my estimations from being rated 3rd in the "trilogy" to being 2nd. I say 2nd because I dont think it will exceed Odyssey, which was a very special game for me. I expect that reaching England will gain Valhalla some additional plus points in my thoughts.
I've now played 7 hours and am still in Norway but I have to say that the more I play the more I am clicking with it. The combat is becoming really rather enjoyable and you can string together some pretty awesome looking combos. Getting a little tired of the snowy landscape but I suspect I must be nearing the end of Norway now so I can get on to the bread and butter of the game, England. Valhalla has definitely been a slow burner for me, I was almost instantly hooked with Origins and Odyssey but its taken me several hours (and getting used to the combat changes) to feel the hook with Valhalla but now that I am feeling it I'm very much enjoying the game. Its janky and yes, its rather buggy, but you know what, I'm still enjoying myself and having fun. At this point I would still rate the current AC trilogy as Odyssey > Origins > Valhalla , but Valhalla is closing the gap on Origins and there are some mechanics in Valhalla that I really wish we had in Origins and Odyssey. I'd still rate it as an 8/10 after 7 hours, but its moving up the decimal places on that 8 score.
A general way to look at it is that this is Ubisoft and AC (as AC is now) , frankly if you didnt like the recent AC titles nothing about Valhalla is going to alter your mind and you wont like this either. If you did like Origins and Odyssey then you will probably like Valhalla, though perhaps with some caveats, and if you loved Origins and Odyssey (as I did, over 400 hours in the two games combined, which as I work to a £ per hour method of rating value for money was FAR more than the £s spent) then you're likely to also like Valhalla. Bottom line is, I spent £65 on the game or thereabouts , for the gold edition, and I will easily get 65 hours of fun out of it, so its a hit for me. All that remains now is to see how much of a hit and whether it can move up in my estimations from being rated 3rd in the "trilogy" to being 2nd. I say 2nd because I dont think it will exceed Odyssey, which was a very special game for me. I expect that reaching England will gain Valhalla some additional plus points in my thoughts.
I’ve only played an hour or so but it really just feels like the previous 2 Assassins Creed games. That’s not a bad thing as I liked the last 2 but so far it really just a feels like a copy of them in a different setting. Maybe I was hoping for to much but I can’t complain as it was technically a free game with the 3700x i upgraded my nephew to.
Soldato
I'm liking it a lot and agree it's stable locked at 60fps on 10855H and gtx2080super Omen17 laptop on very high settings with clouds and shadows on high at 2560x1440. Finished Odyssey and Orgins this year so was an easy get into game.
HDR does work and is selectable, you lose the normal image option and get a image of Stonehenge on the right. I just can’t seem to get the HDR settings right though if that’s what you mean.
Anybody had any experience on SLI with this game?
Im running 2 GTX 1080FE in SLI but when pulling up the performance console pressing F1, it says my second GPU has 0% utilisation?!
I haven’t managed to find anything online about running SLI but I sure as hell hope they supported in this episode! I’ll be extremely disappointed if they don’t!
Im running 2 GTX 1080FE in SLI but when pulling up the performance console pressing F1, it says my second GPU has 0% utilisation?!
I haven’t managed to find anything online about running SLI but I sure as hell hope they supported in this episode! I’ll be extremely disappointed if they don’t!
I will check my SLI rig later, but I doubt it. Did not have SLI in recent AC games, and given way SLI is going doubt they would have it here.
Soldato
You can travel back so it's not too big of a deal to clear it all before leaving if you want to push story forward.
Soldato
I'm just forgetting about HDR, it's not acceptable when turned on, it doesn't work properly.
Without it I fixed the stuttering, it was something to do with my blue tooth dongle. 4k all max with AA off as there is absolutely no need for it, and averaging 63fps.
Without it I fixed the stuttering, it was something to do with my blue tooth dongle. 4k all max with AA off as there is absolutely no need for it, and averaging 63fps.
Well, after 11 and a half hours of play, I've finally reached England. Now perhaps its just a placebo sort of thing but it rather does feel to me that the graphics look better in England and the fps performance is better too. Could just be a mindtwist thing rather than the reality of it but it feels like it to me.
I agree to Pighardia, dont know if its the best water ever, I'd have to think back on some past games but must say that some of the shallow rivers look terrific
I agree to Pighardia, dont know if its the best water ever, I'd have to think back on some past games but must say that some of the shallow rivers look terrific