Content of the article: "Did the new trilogy release in the wrong order?"
I'll lay some groundwork. I'm a huge Assassins Creed fan. I love the whole premise of the story, the lore, the history. The games are generally fantastic. Everyone will have their favourite and least favourite games in the series and that's fine.
My biggest bugbear is the accusation that the newer games aren't relevant to Assassins Creed enough. And I personally disagree wholeheartedly, with the possible exception of Odysseys main story arc. Of course legacy of the first blade starts to lay the groundwork. But I feel the criticism of this kind toward Origins and Valhalla to be unfair.
So, the title of this thread. Are the new trilogy games the wrong way round? Ubisoft went Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla of course. However, date wise and development of the Hidden ones/Assassins and the Order/Templar wise, it should be Odyssey, Origins, Valhalla.
Why? Odyssey takes place the furthest back, around 430bc, there's minimal involvement from the hidden ones, and just hints at the cultists perhaps being a similar thing to the modern Templars. Then kf the course the additional stories, adding to 2 parts of AC law, legacy of the hidden blade planting the seed for Assassins showing the development of the players son to potentially being an Assassin, and fate of Atlantis, shedding light of the first civilisation and the Isu.
Then comes Origins 49bc, furthering on the Order of Ancients as being the enemy and developing the idea of protection into the hidden ones. Which Valhalla (873ad) then develops on in a big way and more instrumental to the story, while also bringing back elements dear to AC fans, hidden blade, one hit assassinations and so on.
This stands to reason to me that we can expect a game set between Valhalla and the first Assassins Creed game to further develop the story and evolution of the hidden ones to the Assassins and Ancients to Templars. As in AC its described as a centuries old struggle, set in 1191, 318 years after Valhalla.
In summary, I belive Odyssey and Origins are the wrong way round and should be played chronologically to best make sense of the development of Assassins and how I think the story should have been interpreted.
- Why Doesn’t Darius (Artabanus) Have His Own Game? Assassin’s Creed: Persia?
- I have lost the faith…
- AC origins is the single best AC I have played and I won’t apologise for it, it deserves to be said
Top 7 NEW Games of January 2021
New year - new month - new games. Take a look at the first 2021 games you’ll be playing on PC, PS5, PS4, Xbox Series X, Xbox One, Switch, and more.
More about Assassin's CreedPost: "Did the new trilogy release in the wrong order?" specifically for the game Assassin's Creed. Other useful information about this game:
- What frustrates you about Valhalla?
- I tried to play all the older AC games in between finishing Odyssey, and Valhalla being released. This is my experience. Possible spoilers
- Lack of Northern landmarks is disappointing
- Odyssey is better than Valhalla? Agree or disagree?
- What if the 2021 rumor game is a Templar spin-off “AC: Rogue” style, in more ways than one?
Top 10 Best Video Games of 2020 (So Far)
In times of uncertainty, video games allow us to escape from the stress of the real world. For this list, we’ll be looking at some of the best games released in the first half of 2020.