Assassin's Creed® Odyssey or Origins

I loved both but think it mainly comes down to the setting, I like Greece in general on many different things including the history so prefered Odyssey.
 
I've 100%'ed Origins, Odyssey and just recently Valhalla. Taken me over 600 hours combined.

The world of Origins is superbly portrayed and I feel that it has the best individual textures. The story is also good and I really like Bayek and little touches like his voice being muffled if you cover his mouth etc. Odyssey has a far larger gameworld, which is both a good thing and a bad thing but has some additional game mechanics which arent present in Origins. On the flip side the lack of a shield bugs me.

If I could only have 1 of them, I'd go with Odyssey because I have a strong interest in the ancient history of Greece and a lot of familiarity with its locations and myths.

Have you considered getting the Ubisoft+ pass? That way you would get the Ultimate versions of Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla and all their DLCs
 
If Origins was the Egypt one...that one! To be fair Valhalla was pretty average but the other 2 were very good. I even did every treasure and side quest which I never do but the Egypt lore and mythology hooked me more than ancient Greece.
 
Tombstone said:
I've 100%'ed Origins, Odyssey and just recently Valhalla. Taken me over 600 hours combined.

The world of Origins is superbly portrayed and I feel that it has the best individual textures. The story is also good and I really like Bayek and little touches like his voice being muffled if you cover his mouth etc. Odyssey has a far larger gameworld, which is both a good thing and a bad thing but has some additional game mechanics which arent present in Origins. On the flip side the lack of a shield bugs me.

If I could only have 1 of them, I'd go with Odyssey because I have a strong interest in the ancient history of Greece and a lot of familiarity with its locations and myths.

Have you considered getting the Ubisoft+ pass? That way you would get the Ultimate versions of Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla and all their DLCs
Click to expand...

This sums it up with exception of their personal opinion at the end. I would pick Origins personally.

I bought both gold and ultimate editions dirt cheap in the Epic Games sales, I'd wait for them tbh. I got AC Odessey Ultimate for £13 and Origins Gold Edition for around £5
 
Origins by a mile. No cut and paste in that game. Odyssey was just far too large and the islands felt too similar. Best thing about it was the mythical beasts and the boat ‘shanties’.
 
Similar to the above two posts (gregg + lethal) however I have disjointed completion percentages for them so far so its not a fair comparison. I first played AC on the Unity game and never got absorbed but that would be my fault as life usually prioritises over games.

I bought Valhalla as I love the Viking history, and in honesty am more interested in this than Greece. I have not played the DLC of it though and can easy rip into it as they seem to make a hash of the franchise these days.

After Valhalla I played Odyssey as few mates banged on about how much better it was but I think I got burnout after 99% Valhalla. In honesty I didn't like the cartoony feel of it but that is the bias kicking in after being lavished through Valhalla (play it on 4k monitor).

So I know I have played them in a back to front order but I think like a popular movie, Odyssey was overrated by peers making me feel it was trying to be too intricate with weapons etc and comes the bottom of the three (if you include Valhalla) for me personally. I may change my mind if I ever get to 100% them all.
 
Th0nt said:
What makes Odyssey better may I ask? Is it the extension of weapons, story or something else?
Click to expand...
Story just for me, I liked the characters more the size just enjoyed it more, Valhalla was just "do set of missions to gain support, rinse repeat, Origins which I thought I would like more because I'm more interested in their history than the other two just didn't grab me, Odessey just grabbed me from the start and didn't let go.
 
Origins, not even a contest. Much better designed world, better setting (opinion, obviously), much less copy&paste, weightier combat and animations. Odyssey reuses so many assets it's not even funny.

There are some individual elements in Odyssey that might be considered better but overall it wasn't really that good.
 
Origins was a damn good game, and effectively rebooted the AC lineup which had gotten stale, it was really good.

Odyssey was bigger and for me, more fun. I've played it thru 100% twice now as both characters. The DLC is ok, for some reason I really enjoyed the Hades levels but hated the next zone.

Valhalla is darker, and for me a lot less fun - I just didn't gel with the characters even though I completed it. It feels like a poor copy of Witcher 3 to me in many ways.
Having only recently discovered Witcher (bad I know) it would take a lot to get me back into an AC game now.
 
Slight thread hijack here, but would I be missing much by skipping Syndicate (or at least the 2nd half) and going straight to Origins? I've played every one on the PC so far (with AC2/Revelations/Brotherhood and Black Flag being joint favourites), struggled through Unity and finding Syndicate a real chore, its not grabbing my interest at all - really want to get on to Egypt as I love the lore/history etc. but having gotten to this stage almost feel obliged to finish them in order :p
 
Zoinks. I thought Syndicate was one of the best entries! London is lovely to play in. But I don't think the story is linked at all, when they started Origins they brought in a new "crew" for the real-world stuff. At least, I think that's right. It's been a while...
 
Syndicate for me was a guilty pleasure... I knew it didn't feel like a proper AC game and it wasn't as good as old AC2 or 4 (better than Unity though!) but growing up in London, I still loved it. The batman grapple was irritating, while the trains were great. And having commuted a lot of my life into Waterloo, there's something surreal about going there to shank someone!

I enjoyed AC2, loved AC4 Black Flag, pirates and palm trees are always gonna be fun, and my son played the Ezio series inside out and upside down.

Unity I hated, was just a chore, even though Paris should be a lovely setting for a game. I played it thru sheer determination not to waste my money!

Think the stinker for me was the US revolution one. Not being a yank, I just didn't care for the historical figures. Although I really enjoyed the offshoot AC Rogue. Weird!
 
skyripper said:
Unity I hated, was just a chore, even though Paris should be a lovely setting for a game. I played it thru sheer determination not to waste my money!
Click to expand...

:cry: I must have picked a bad one then, on PC my first AC was Unity, explains why I never stuck at it. Then as I loved the viking lore had to check out Valhalla, which I thought was pretty decent albeit the last third of the game is too easy even if you jack up the difficulty to main char is too OP with runes and set bonus'.
 
I think my problem with Syndicate is the characters, similarly to Unity find the pure city setting a bit boring (all the others have had mixed areas of city and wilderness), but at least Arno had some kind of consistency and motivation, Evie and... "thingy", just have no depth to them at all (as evidenced by the fact I can't even remember his name :cry:). I think I'll stick with it, but just hammer my way through the story missions
 
Personally marginally liked Odyssey better than Origins but loved both of them and Origins kicked off a welcome change in the combat system that was needed in the series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom