What's better Assassins Creed Valhalla or Tales of Tsushima

Minime2.5

Going to get one of them for my brother for Christmas

ZiabR

Honestly, Valhalla is just a copy and paste of Origins... Yes, it can look beautiful but its just more of the same. Combat is a little annoying aswell.

If it were me and I dont own a PS4 or 5 I would be going with Ghost of Tsushima. It looks beautiful and the combat looked good, got favourable reviews aswell.

Retr0gamer

I'd pick two different games.:pac:

Ghost of Tsushima if I had to pick one of the two. Valhalla is pretty but it really outstays it's welcome I've 4 areas left to do and have 80 odd hours done. The story missions are rinse repeat to a degree and it's padded to kingdom come with collectibles which you need to do to level up and improve your gear etc. and it's still buggy.

It's not to say I'm not enjoying Valhalla but I don't feel it's making great use of my time.

Jordan 199

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'd pick two different games.:pac:

Would Ace Combat 7 be one of them?

marcbrophy

Tsushima

Having never played Ghost of Satsuma, I'd say Valhalla all the way

Retr0gamer

Jordan 199 wrote: »

Would Ace Combat 7 be one of them?

You know the way to a retr0gamers heart.

I'm enjoying valhalla and I've close to 80 hours in it. But I got if free with my ryzen 7. If I didn't I probably wouldn't have bought it..

Potential-Monke

Two very different games imo. I found Ghosts a lot more about taking your time, and the combat is amazing once you unlock all the stances. Can be pretty difficult, and story is pretty good also. Have yet to finish it, as I stopped playing when I knew I was getting a PS5. Valhalla, I have only played a small bit of but seems like more of the same (which is not always bad) as Origins and Odyssey. I loved both of those games, and I've no doubt I'll love Valhalla as it's getting better reviews than the other 2 from what I've read. Plus Vikings! I also imagine there's a lot less collectibles in Ghosts, and the ones that are there either have a use or are interesting (upping your health by having a bath and thinking about something, or composing a haiku's).

So, the real question is, does your brother prefer Samurai or Vikings?

Also, from the little play of Valhalla I've had, Ghosts looks visually better.

brady12

ZiabR wrote: »

Honestly, Valhalla is just a copy and paste of Origins... Yes, it can look beautiful but its just more of the same. Combat is a little annoying aswell.

If it were me and I dont own a PS4 or 5 I would be going with Ghost of Tsushima. It looks beautiful and the combat looked good, got favourable reviews aswell.

That not what i want to hear after just finishing origins tonight and considering deleting game few times but grinder it out to finish the story ☹️

I voted for Ghost of Tsushima, I'm playing through it now. It's beautiful, the story is good, combat is great. Big open world, but not full of pointless fetch quests. Go where you need to go, enjoy the sights along the way and do what you need to do. I haven't played AC since the Egyptian one and I didn't really like it.

[Deleted User]

brady12 wrote: »

That not what i want to hear after just finishing origins tonight and considering deleting game few times but grinder it out to finish the story ☹️

I was in same boat, picked up Odyessy rather than the 60 ofd quid for Valhalla

The Phantom Pain

Ghost of Tsushima. It's not even close.
GOT feels fresh. Valhalla is a slog.

The Phantom Pain

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Two very different games imo. I found Ghosts a lot more about taking your time, and the combat is amazing once you unlock all the stances. Can be pretty difficult, and story is pretty good also. Have yet to finish it, as I stopped playing when I knew I was getting a PS5. Valhalla, I have only played a small bit of but seems like more of the same (which is not always bad) as Origins and Odyssey. I loved both of those games, and I've no doubt I'll love Valhalla as it's getting better reviews than the other 2 from what I've read. Plus Vikings! I also imagine there's a lot less collectibles in Ghosts, and the ones that are there either have a use or are interesting (upping your health by having a bath and thinking about something, or composing a haiku's).

So, the real question is, does your brother prefer Samurai or Vikings?

Also, from the little play of Valhalla I've had, Ghosts looks visually better.

Odyssey is still the best reviewed of the three (excluding PS5 and the new Xbox which it was not reviewed on)

skerry

Tsushima

Tried to get into Odyssey and Origins and failed so I've held off on Valhalla. Often see comparisons with the Witcher 3 with the last few AC games and just not seeing it. Witcher 3 is on another level altogether.

I bought Ghost of Tsushima on release. Made it to the first act and traded it in. Apart from it looking nice I didn't see the attraction at all. Same generic open world missions that put me off AC games.

Poll needs a Witcher 3 option

brady12

Debate now for me after finishing origins is whether to start ghost of Tsushima , odyssey or valhalla. Prob ghost but don’t know what play then.

Retr0gamer

Go for ghost. You'll durn yourself out on ass creed.

Anniepowaa

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Go for ghost. You'll durn yourself out on ass creed.

you are such a loser

Minime2.5

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'd pick two different games.:pac:

What's your personal opinion of The Witcher 3 And Breath of the wild ?

Retr0gamer

Minime2.5 wrote: »

What's your personal opinion of The Witcher 3 And Breath of the wild ?

Absolutely adore breath do the wild and think it's the kick up the arse open world games need. It's not perfect, the end game combat is just taking on bullet sponge enemies but I love how it let the player make their own fun.

Witcher 3 I've not played a lot of but seen enough and heard enough to know that the quests in it are way ahead of anyone else.

Ghosts and ass creed aren't bad games, just so sick of that formula although ass creed going full on rpg is what the series really needed.

Yeah Witcher is in a league of it's own with it comes to it's quests. It's not perfect as in other games do certain other things better but over all a great game with so much going for it. Regularly comes up on sale for less than €15 with all the DLC.

Potential-Monke

Personally, the only thing separating AC, GoT and The Witcher 3 is the writing. All 3 games are basically the same, fight, upgrade, get better weapons, repeat (same as most games tbh, there's not much you can do to that formula without breaking it completely), but the writing/stories/quests/side quests in TW3 are just better overall. Not saying there's anything wrong with AC, I platinumed Odyssey and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. I really enjoyed Origins too but preferred Odyssey. And I haven't finished GoT but the story was pretty good imo, if not a bit more mature/realistic than the other 2.

I do think I have open world burn at the moment though, and with GoT to finish, Valhalla to basically start, Immortals coming out tomorrow, Cyberpunk next week... There's a lot of open world games to come and I don't know if I'll have the patience for them all.

Sephiroth_dude

Needs a third option "Legend of Dragoon"

Retr0gamer

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Needs a third option "Legend of Dragoon"

Wait until the bluepoint remaster.


I'm.actually sick writing that in case it comes true.

Azza

I'd go with Assasssin's Creed Unity and Sekiro:Shadows Die Twice

Minime2.5

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Personally, the only thing separating AC, GoT and The Witcher 3 is the writing. All 3 games are basically the same, fight, upgrade, get better weapons, repeat (same as most games tbh, there's not much you can do to that formula without breaking it completely), but the writing/stories/quests/side quests in TW3 are just better overall. Not saying there's anything wrong with AC, I platinumed Odyssey and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. I really enjoyed Origins too but preferred Odyssey. And I haven't finished GoT but the story was pretty good imo, if not a bit more mature/realistic than the other 2.

I do think I have open world burn at the moment though, and with GoT to finish, Valhalla to basically start, Immortals coming out tomorrow, Cyberpunk next week... There's a lot of open world games to come and I don't know if I'll have the patience for them all.

What separates the Witcher 3 for me other than the story is the Fantasy element to it. For me the AC Valhalla and Tales of T are too realisticaly based on History . I know there are some fantasy elements but not enough. Id have liked to have seen a sea serpent or the kraken in the sea of these games. In the witcher you have ghosts vampires werewolves witches all a whole host of different fantasy characters . The only thing the witcher falls down on is the combat

Potential-Monke

Well then, let me introduce you to Immortals: Fenyx Rising, the AC team doing exactly what you're looking for in the style of BOTW:

Minime2.5

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Well then, let me introduce you to Immortals: Fenyx Rising, the AC team doing exactly what you're looking for in the style of BOTW:

I don't lie the bright cartoony look of it.

Potential-Monke

Minime2.5 wrote: »

I don't lie the bright cartoony look of it.

It suits the game really well though. People compare it to BOTW but I've never played that so can't really say. But I get where you're coming from.

Hey_Listen

I think BOTW has a much better aesthetic. It's really well animated. Fenyx is a bit loony tunes at times it seems. It's a real shame you have to buy a Nintendo console to play BOTW in 1080p / 30 FPS. Would love to see what Nintendo could do on one of the newer platforms.

Might get fenyx on Xbox when it's 20 quid. Still looks s lot of fun.

Hmmm this thread is Valhalla Vs ghosts of tsushima