Console version(s) might be a different story but Origins and Odyssey had thread scheduling issues particularly on AMD CPU's where a lot of the threads just ended up on a single CPU core and then you have the divide between AMD and the lack of D3D driver command lists and NVIDIA where for a NVIDIA GPU the game puts in some extra threads but it's always 8 so you need the additional cores although it provides a significant performance advantage as long as CPU utilization wasn't hindered. (Early AMD drivers also had performance issues but still about a 40% improvement far as I remember tests between the two.) AMD landed at around 60 - 80% CPU usage instead of near constant 99% and as a result GPU usage could be more limited, I presume this is one of the key problems for Navi10 GPU's and something DXVK can work around so when it does work the GPU is no longer clocking down or exhibiting irregular frame time values by having frequent FPS drops. (D3D9's particularly problematic but hopefully that little problem will also be resolved eventually.) That particular problem for the render API won't be a issue if the game uses low-level DirectX 12 or Vulkan though so it will be interesting to see what these could do depending on how the developers use it, Vulkan also has a good number of extensions for either GPU vendor and Origins and Odyssey were fairly vendor neutral though Ghost Recon Breakpoint working more with AMD predictably pulled in several AMD extensions and a few NVIDIA ones but both AMD and NVIDIA saw framerate improvements over D3D11 so both still benefit. Well there's possible problems too such as for Division 2 how that game still has some stability issues with whatever they're doing and why these aren't being resolved but that's a different team also. (Sure the sales dwindled down but it's still going reasonable well so while they might have refocused support plans and additional content cutting support would be problematic.) And that's a bit of text for hopefully the devs know what they are doing and the hardware and software is implemented and utilized well, been some years now for Vulkan 1.0 and even 1.1 plus both AMD and NVIDIA support the latest 1.2.x versions even if NVIDIA hasn't merged in this from the Vulkan developer drivers yet but that will happen eventually for whatever games or other software will start requiring VLK 1.2 support and these newer extensions if the driver is capable of using them. There's also drivers bugs and that whole mess like the compiler problem with AMD and that's still a ongoing issue with for example ReShade although acknowledged but still not fixed. The newest NVIDIA Vulkan development driver seems to have made some improvements as well and fixed a few bugs so the driver side of things still continues to be important as always. EDIT: D3D12_2 / DirectX 12 Ultimate and I would assume Vulkan 1.3 will also be interesting but probably not relevant for a while yet or used in limited capacity as it will require new GPU hardware for the PC systems. Going to be curious to see what improvements some of these things could lead to and what it will be utilized for in the next couple of years.
There was a small interview with him today where he said Ubisoft wanted to focus on authentic instruments. He has written music for all the territories and some of it is very minimalistic and some more like the music we know from Wardruna. He reckons there was between 60 to 70 tracks. Many of the songs will have both a Norse and an English version. He is happy Ubi did no go the commercial route musically and many of the tracks will be very "unpolished".
I'm way behind when it comes to this series and i have no idea who Warduna is, but i loved Jesper's OST for AC2. Half way through it now and just hitting Flight Over Venice and i still really enjoy it. Stopped being lazy and Googled Warduna, makes sense
"Shoot! Shoot the flying demon!" I still remember that. I think by now they made it a little easier to fly at a certain height but back then it was a real mess. Had to try it like 20 times and everytime you see that bloody cutscene again.
it s gonna be a busy october... this year, 3 AAA games that are absolutely non missable, maybe assassin s creed can wait, since we ve known the formula, im not too excited, but dying light 2 and cyberpunk already in september, watch dogs legion in october, please god find me time to play...
Can I finish origins and odyssey double in both pc and xbox before valhalla release? Anyone? Even all previous ones? I have full ac collection for PC and xbox. I am a true fan of the game.
I put around 80 hours into Origins and Odyssey, each. That's about par for the course according to howlongtobeat.com (80 hours for a Completionist run in Origins, 80 hours for Odyssey for a main + extra run).
Depends on how much free time you have, but yeah I don't see why not. Just beware that at least Origins gets pretty repetitive about halfway in or so. I finished the game at around 36 hours I think. Didn't do all the side-quests but quite a few. Did not bother with any non-quest stuff that wasn't essential. Haven¨t played Odyssey but it's quite a bit longer as twonha posted.
I'm doing a run through Odyssey on hard as Kassandra, first play through I did 30 hours as the guy but stopped about 18 months ago, enjoying it much more now, currently 49 and aiming for 100% completion, I got it on Uplay+ so I get the DLC, will do Origins next then hopefully Valhalla will be released!
I finished Odyssey a few weeks back, although I started it last year. It gets very repetitive after a while, so I took a break and came back only for a story. I then played Origins, which I found to be far more interesting. For me, the story was better and characters more likable. Odyssey took about 150 hours and Origins about 60 hours, both without DLCs and with all side quests finished. On a side note, I really dislike the super simple parkour that AC have now. I still remember having to at least look at and push some buttons to scale a wall even in black flag and I think Unity. Why the hell would they simplify everything to just pushing forward button ?
Fully agreed. Scaling the tallest buildings in AC1 and the Ezio trilogy wasn't difficult, but at least required paying attention and finding a path up. Just getting across town was cooler if you knew what you were doing. I'd have appreciated a system that allows simple traversal, but becomes better with thought and skill.
Yup. In the first AC titles you couldn't just simply climb your way out of trouble, it was slow and ppl threw stuff at you. Way more interesting overall. Also the combat in AC1 was far better, esp against those crusaders. It was already simplified in AC2 though and went downhill from there until AC Origins changed combat to something more dynamic & fast like the Batman Arkham titles.
Sorry combat was terrible in the older AC, they'd queue up taking it in turns to fight you, was silly, at least now they attack as a group.
I'd say that those enemies still just line up to fight you one after another, they just aren't aggressive enough and you can avoid almost all damage just by dodging. I'm not sure if the combat is really better, there are more options, sure, and you can press more buttons, but it doesn't really make things that more difficult or fun. Plus almost every encounter can be trivialized just by using bows. I mean it's not really terrible, but I don't play AC for that fun combat mechanics either. So I guess I'll just wait and see what they do with the game.
What difficulty do you play on? I found that makes a difference, I used to play on normal and only weapon I ever needed to use was a sword and I mostly didn't have problems in combat, playing it again on hard and I have to completely change my strategy, especially when there's one or two mercenaries added into the group of soldiers I'm fighting, spear and axe are my go tos.