My history with
Assassin's Creed can best be described as a roller coaster. My introduction to the series was
Assassin's Creed II, and I loved it. After that, I went through and played the original game. I was a little disappointed by it, and then came
Brotherhood, where I was disappointed to learn that we weren't in a new time period. Still though, for all its faults, I enjoyed it. Then came
Revelations, which I seemed to like a lot more than the rest of the world. I legitimately put
Revelations as my third favorite title in the series, but other people seemed to hate it. Then, of course,
Assassin's Creed III came out and...meh. 2013 rolled around and my favorite game in the series,
Black Flag came out. It was the first
Assassin's Creed game I'd ever truly 100%-ed. The following year, we got
Rogue and
Unity. I enjoyed
Rogue, and I thought
Unity was bland, but it least had a somewhat compelling love story driving it forward. Then
Syndicate came out and it was terrible, so I'd just about given up hope on this saga. However, developer Ubisoft announced it was going to take two years to build the next title instead of just one, so I kept a little bit of hope in the back of my head. Then, when I heard that this new game was going to take place in Ancient Egypt (a setting that is incredibly interesting to me), that hope started to grow a little bit more. Well, here we are, and now I've had the chance to play through the newest title;
Assassin's Creed: Origins. So, the question is, was the two years of development time worth it? Let me put it to you this way:
Origins, despite making it onto the ever growing list of terrible Ubisoft subtitles, is the best
Assassin's Creed game since
Black Flag. However, that should not be taken as an indication that it's as good or even close to as good. This is still an incredibly flawed game, but it's the best that Ubisoft has put out in years.
Origins takes place in Egypt in the last years before the Common Era (or the last years Before Christ, whichever label your prefer). At this part of Egypt's history, most of the country had been conquered by Greek and Roman forces, causing tension between the colonizers and the resident Egyptians. Cleopatra, rightful pharaoh of Egypt, had been forced off of her throne by her brother, Ptolemy. Ptolemy served as a puppet for a sinister organization known as "The Order of the Ancients" (where I start to suspect a bit of fiction being added to the history). The Order kills the son of Bayek of Siwa, who serves as our protagonist and Medjay of Egypt. From there, Bayek embarks on a quest to destroy the Order of the Ancients and bring justice to the people responsible for the death of his son. That's the story. It doesn't evolve much from there. Before I go any further on that point, I feel inclined to point out that Bayek himself is one of the game's biggest strengths, and he is personally one of my favorite
Assassin's Creed protagonists. Sure, his most clearly defined character trait is his commitment to his goal (which is a recipe for poor development), but as the game progresses, he becomes a refreshingly human protagonist. A problem I've always had with these games is that their protagonists very rarely seem to fit in the time period (with the exceptions of Edward Kenway and possibly Connor). They always seem to be guided by a decidedly modern perception of right and wrong (except, of course, when it comes to killing), and it's always bothered me. I very rarely have felt that these characters are actually a part of the culture they live in. Even Ezio, as well crafted a character as he was, felt more like a modern charismatic guy than a renaissance Italian one. All of this is to say that Ubisoft has rectified this problem with Bayek. Bayek feels 100% Egyptian, like the man truly thinks like an ancient Egyptian might think. He believes in Egypt's Gods and all of the mythology. Part of the reason for his mission is that he believes his son can't reach the afterlife because of the way he died. There are side quests where he literally hunts people down and kills them for sacrilege against the Gods. Is that a morally upstanding thing to do? Of course not! But the ancient Egyptians believed that the Gods were actively at work in their world, so sacrilege against them could bring disaster to the whole country. That, to them, would be a crime worthy of death. It's just
so refreshing to see Ubisoft really placing their protagonist in the time period.
But I digress. Back to the story. There really isn't any. That's one of the game's weaknesses. It's not just that the story is nonexistant, it's that it may very well be the laziest story I've ever seen in a game. In past titles, the story unravelled as an ever growing list of people to assassinate and an ever growing conspiracy to unravel. It has typically been done smoothly, but it definitely isn't handled as well in
Origins. Where past titles might introduce a new target through overhearing a conversation, in
Origins, the flow is typically:
"I've uncovered these 4 members of the order. Now I'll go out to kill each of them!"
"I've killed each of them!"
"Oh, by the way, here are 4 more. Hop to it!"
It never felt like I was unraveling some grand conspiracy. It just felt like I was checking names off an increasingly large checklist, and I never felt any real reason to kill most of the targets. You'll end up killing all these targets before the major villain behind everything is revealed. Without spoiling anything, he's a character that is introduced literally less than half-an-hour of gameplay before he was revealed as the villain. The game treats this twist as if it's this massive betrayal, but you literally only know the man's name because he was addressed by that name
once. You never fight alongside him, you never get to know him, but out of the blue, he's the dark force behind the murder of Bayek's son and the order that is oppressing Egypt. I suppose it's better executed than the introduction of Rodrigo Borgia as the villain in
Assassin's Creed II, but not by much. All in all, the story does pick up in the last half-hour or so, but by then it's too little, too late. It's a shame, but it isn't a game-breaker. After all,
Black Flag didn't have much in the way of story either. One last story note, with the exception of Bayek's wife, Aya, pretty much every villain, ally, and in-between is handled about as well as the main villain. It's less offensive with every other character, but it's still worth noting that characters are about as weak as we've come to expect from modern
Assassin's Creed titles.
We're not done talking about the negatives yet. The poor, lazy story was a major weakness, but the game's biggest flaw is the fact that it is
mercilessly padded out. That isn't me complaining about the fact that this game is content-rich (one of the game's biggest strengths), it's just that too much of what should have been side content becomes necessary in order to progress.
Origins uses a leveling system, much like an rpg. Every quest has a recommended level attached to it, and even on wimpy baby easy mode, the recommended levels are a firm line in the sand. I
hate this kind of system. I
hate that kind of artificial padding. I realize that, given my love of
Dragon Age: Inquisition, that statement makes me a hypocrite, but it's
really bad in
Origins. Few things in games make me angrier than being
forced to do side content in order to progress in the story. That's the point of having side content; it should be there as a bonus if you want to get some more content out of your playthrough. After each story mission, the next story mission will have a recommended level about 3 or 4 levels above the recommended level of the mission you just completed. So, after every mission, you'll have to complete as many as 10 side quests or complete several misc objectives like looting treasures in an enemy camp or something like that. It's a long, slow process to level up, so you're going to be spending most of you time frantically searching for side quests that give you enough experience to be worth your time. I started writing this review before I beat the game. When I started writing this review, I had put about 30 hours into
Origins, and I thought I was close to the end, but that was decidedly not the case. You see, the game tricks you. Once you've eliminated all your targets, you get a new mission, and at the start of the mission, you get the "there's no turning back once we go there" spiel. Then, you'll go through an incredibly rushed "final push"-esque segment wherein you take down the two most evil targets you have within a 10-minute timeframe. It's rushed as all getout and proves my point about this story being lazy, but I did find it invigorating. Then, the true villain is revealed, and it looks like you're going to fight him. However, that doesn't happen. Instead, the game goes back to normal, and you'll need to start doing side quests again to reach the next recommended level. I literally turned the game off when I realized that. I hate that system
so much. When I eventually started back up, I did so with bitterness in my heart. I'd always thought that the climax was supposed to happen towards the end, but I guess Ubisoft had other ideas. In any case, the game's padding doesn't get any better after that point, so it's just more of the same until the end.
This wouldn't be too big a problem if all the side quests weren't exactly the same. You'll talk to some poorly-acted civilian who is having a problem because the soldiers a) kidnapped someone they know, b) stole something of value, or c) all of the above, you'll head to the general location of the hostage/item of value/all of the above, you'll call Senu (your eagle whose purpose is similar to the owl from
Far Cry: Primal) to mark the exact location as well as mark the enemies in the location, then you'll go in and save the hostage/retrieve the item. There are story differences between these missions, of course, but they always boil down to saving a hostage or retrieving some items. There are some quests that involve assassinations, but they're few and far between. So, not only is the padding a chore, but it also leads to repetition.
Ok, I've ragged on this game enough, let's talk about something more positive. Gameplay, for instance. During the two year development time, Ubisoft completely revamped the combat system. Veteran
Assassin's Creed players will need to take some time to get used to it. Though not the most original combat system, it's gratifying to play. You have your light attack, your heavy attack, your dodge, and a special skill that can be triggered once you've generated enough "adrenaline." This special skill is different for each type of weapon, so as you experiment with the
many kinds of weapons, the experience will always be fresh. You have regular swords, sickle swords (my weapon of choice), heavy blunts, heavy non-blunts, and scepters. Each kind of weapon has its own unique advantages. For instance, heavy blunts can knock even the toughest enemies down, and sickle swords cause bleeding damage, causing your enemies to lose health even when they aren't actively being slashed. You'll want to experiment with the various weapons and see which kind fits your play style. In addition to the many melee weapons, you also have a variety of bows at your disposal. I thought that was a bit overkill, but I digress. You have hunter bows, light bows (which fire arrows in rapid succession), warrior bows (which fire five arrows at once), and predator bows (which let you zoom in and do the most stealth damage). Personally, I recommend the predator bows. If you get the perk that lets you carry two bows, then I'd also recommend adding a warrior bow. For every weapon type, there are various tiers of rarity. You've got your rares, your legendaries, etc. I found that a weapon's rarity didn't really matter that much. In any case, gameplay is made up of stealth and open combat, though the game is decidedly more in favor of the open combat approach. Stealth will mainly be used to thin the herd, but I guarantee that you won't be able to take everyone out with stealth. Part of this is due to the fact that the hidden blade is no longer a guaranteed instant kill (which I'll touch on a little bit later), but there's also just not as many places to hide as in previous games. When the game does go into open combat, it operates about how any light/heavy attack hack and slash game operates. There isn't much thought involved, but it's fun to play, and it feels satisfying. When using a heavy weapon, I was able to really feel the force of it. When using a sickle sword, it felt like I was actually slicing through something. The team that worked on attack feedback deserves praise for their efforts. On the whole, it feels more deliberate, more slow-paced like actual combat might be. In addition, there are also points in the story where you take control of a ship and engage in naval battles a-la
Black Flag, only with the cannons replaced by archers and catapults. As always this combat is fantastic, but it does feel more on-rails, as you're really only controlling the ship to fight, and you have no way of upgrading what you have. Imagine the ship battles from
III, but a little bit more stripped down. Maybe that sounds like a criticism of the game, but I didn't hate that the ship portions were in there. Quite the opposite, I loved each ship portion I played.
Gameplay also consists of exploration, and that's another of
Origin's strengths. Egypt is painstakingly created, and I get the sense that this is the most historically accurate sandbox that Ubisoft has created to date. There's so much little attention to detail that I could write a novel on it and it still wouldn't scratch the surface. For instance, in ancient Greek and Roman brothels, there would be paintings on the walls that detailed what a particular "worker" would do. When you enter one of the brothels in the Roman or Greek-controlled cities in
Origins (as part of the main quest, I swear!), you'll find such paintings on the wall. No attention is given to them, but they're there to be noticed if you remember little tidbits from world history class. This kind of historical detail is present everywhere, and it makes exploring incredibly rewarding. Even in places like the vast desert, the devs managed to make things interesting. Walk around in the desert for too long and you'll start to see mirages and hear strange noises. Details like this make Egypt feel interesting to explore. There are so many random tombs, scattered forts, and hidden gems to find, and I could tell that a lot of love went into making this setting. The fact that the graphics are so doggoned good really adds to this.
Origins has some of the best water effects I've ever seen to date, and the sunset over the nile is truly beautiful. One aspect of exploration from previous games has been broken down, however. This aspect is synchronization. In past games, synchronizing would reveal a section of the world map. However, in
Origins, regions of the map are uncovered as soon as you reach them. There are still synchronization points, but their purpose is pretty much zip at this point. They unlock extra fast travel options, but I personally never sought them out.
As you travel the game map, you'll come across a variety of crafting materials. For the first time since
Black Flag (and maybe
Rogue but I forget), crafting is back in
Assassin's Creed, and the worst thing you can say about it is that it's harmless. It isn't great or really all that compelling, but it's harmless otherwise. You can pick up pelts, soft leather, hard leather, bronze, iron, and cedar wood to upgrade some of your stats. Upgrading your breastplate gives you more overall health. Upgrading your quiver lets you carry more arrows. Upgrading your left and right bracers increases your melee or ranged damage. Upgrading your tool pouch lets you carry more tools. And finally, upgrading your hidden blade causes stealth attacks to do more damage and allows enemies of progressively higher levels to be assassinated automatically. I still think it was a bad decision to make the hidden blade an upgradable item instead of letting it keep its function from previous titles, but as I mentioned, it was harmless. It didn't really have that much of an impact on the gameplay. I'd say that going out and getting the resources to upgrade it as many times as you can is a good idea, but it isn't necessary. And speaking of things that can happen, but aren't necessary....
Microtransactions! Woo-hoo! Look, it's a shame that there are microtransactions and loot boxes in this already $60 single-player game, but I'll say this: If these scummy business practices
have to be included in games, if there is no way we'll ever get rid of them, they should be implemented the way they're implemented in
Origins. For starters, I was only ever prompted to look in the market once, and that was at the moment the market became available to me. There was just a quick message telling me about the market, and after that, I was never hassled again. You could probably pick up some decent loot with these microtransactions, but rest assured that you absolutely can make it through the whole campaign (sometimes as many as three levels below the recommended one) without spending a cent. Obviously it's still bad that these microtransactions exist here in the first place, and it's a shame that people with addictive personalities have to have this leech sitting in the background, but as far as microtransaction implementations go, this is the most harmless one I've seen from a AAA publisher. Now, if we could have them taken out, that would be an even better implementation! Look, here's the thing: If you don't have an addictive personality, you need not fear the microtransactions in
Origins. They won't bother you, and you won't need them. Even if you do tend to find yourself tempted by these kinds of things, as I mentioned, it isn't constantly advertised to you. Unless you have a serious addictive personality, chances are you'll be able to put the microtransactions out of sight and out of mind.
So, Ubisoft had 2 years to develop this title. Is it a buggy mess like pretty much every recent
Assassin's Creed title? There are less bugs than before, but there are still quite a few, primarily with the audio. More than once, a line of dialogue wouldn't actually get spoken, but the character would continue to move their mouth. At one point, I had to cross a palace yard, and a line of dialogue kept stopping and restarting. I ended up sneaking my way across to the sound of "Caesar m.."... "Caes"..."Caesar mu"...."C"...."Caes". It didn't stop until the next cutscene. In addition to audio issues, there are pretty frequent framerate drops on the PS4 version of the game, and I hear that it's much worse for PC players. Also, in some cases, there were serious lip-syncing delays. Overall, not nearly as buggy as, say,
Unity, but it's still too buggy to say that 2 years was the right amount of development time.
At this point, I've dragged
Assassin's Creed: Origins through the sand, I've praised it, then I've gone back to dragging it through the sand. As I mentioned in the introduction,
Origins is the best
Assassin's Creed since
Black Flag. However, it's still not up to snuff when you compare it side-by-side with older titles. In a way,
Origins is an odd case. Its story is beyond lazy, its characters are flat, it comes accompanied by many bugs, and its padding is an obstacle in the way of progress. In spite of that, though, the gameplay and historical exploration, the things people actually play
Assassin's Creed for, are brilliant. How does one judge a title that accomplishes what it
needs to accomplish so well, but leaves everything else behind? In my case, all I can do is judge it the way I saw it. Make no mistake,
Assassin's Creed: Origins is altogether worth your time and, as long as you aren't buying one of the super expensive deluxe editions, your money. There are just some downsides that you'll need to mull over before you make that decision for yourself.
So, let us review:
Weak, lazy story - 0.8
Insufferable padding - 1.0
Technical issues - 0.3
The final score for
Assassin's Creed: Origins is...
Oh wait, I forgot to mention the present-day protagonist! How could I have left that out? Silly me! Her name is Layla, and you play as her sometimes. Back to the scoring!
The final score for
Assassin's Creed: Origins is...
7.9/10 - Acceptable
That being the case, I'm sorry to say that
Assassin's Creed: Origins is not eligible for Game of the Year 2017. This game just needed a little more work put into it for it to be GOTY material.
Decent work, Ubisoft, decent work.
In case you didn't understand the subtitle for this review, allow me to help:
Prince of Egypt - The Plagues
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thoughts? Questions? Think I'm full of it?