Here you can find all forums, blogs and similar sections, that are meant for different types of communication.

Banner Hide banner



I am not recommending this game, even though I have 127 hours spent in it, and probably could have spent even more, since there is still a lot to explore, but I do not really have any motivation to do that.

It is worse than Odyssey in my mind. One part of why is probably the setting and general tone. I remember someone analyzed Need for Speed games back in the day and it turned out that blue-ish and white-ish games in the series failed in sales because of the overall cold feel, and i think I see the same thing in Valhalla. One could argue, that "hey, there is Norway here, it is cold there", and yes, that is true, but most of your time you spend in England, and while it also has snow in northern region, it's... It is just not as welcoming as Greece was.

And while again you can argue that "England is not Greece" (well, duh), the second part of why I think it is worse is the narrative. It sucks. Can't say I remember much from Odyssey now, but when I was playing it character felt alive. They felt natural. In Valhalla characters are flat, and most of them are completely forgettable. In fact, most of them look a like. I am a Caucasian, but I felt like I am not, because I could barely differentiate between some of the characters.

The cutscenes are badly presented, too. Final Fantasy XIV has, arguably, way less complex engine for cutscenes, and yet any random one from FFXIV would be way more articulate and emotional than what Valhalla can offer. I did not care for anything or anyone on the screen till the very end of the game. I think only the Asgard DLC(s) were ok, because they were not supposed to "feel real" to begin with, so I guess suspension of disbelief worked better there.

And yet I played 127 hours somehow. There is a lot to do here, probably more than in any of the previous games in the series. The quality of the side content is varying, but I the "world quests" certainly brought some sparkle sometimes. This feature I do approve, because it does make it interesting to explore... Unless it's England.

I think they just went for something too big. The game is simply too large. Yes, it's not empty (which is good), but smaller areas from DLCs felt way more balanced and diverse enough for their size. Amount of stuff in England brings some anxiety to me personally. The scale of things is probably what ruined the story, too: if there were fewer characters, maybe they could have been explored better.

In terms of gameplay (besides exploration) - it is the same as the 2 previous games. Can't say if it's better or worse in any regard, to be honest, but if you liked it in previous games, you will probably like it here. Sieges could be a really cool thing, though, if only they had a bit more tactical stuff, like choices of how to progress in them. I think there was only 1, where there was 1 choice (which wall to destroy). But otherwise they were quite satisfactory.

So... Yeah. Don't play this for story. For exploration, if you have lots of time - sure, but definitely not for story. And not for "intimate" assassinations.