BENGALURU: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla is, depending on how you count it, either the 12th or the 22nd release in the Assassin’s Creed series. It’s also the third since the series essentially underwent a soft reboot with 2017’s Origins. So it’s standing on the shoulders of giants, but how good is it?
More than any other review I’ve written, this one needs a little background detail — I’m a massive fan of the Assassin’s Creed series, right from the admittedly-quite-janky original right up until the last one, Odyssey. So it’s safe to say that I’m, if anything biased in favour of these games; there’s something about the formula that I find extremely enjoyable. And yet, my answer to the question in the last paragraph is a resounding shrug.
Let’s start with the setting Valhalla, as you’d expect, finally takes Assassin’s Creed into the Viking era, focusing on the Viking invasion of Britain in 873 AD. You play as Eivor, a Norse warrior — either male or female, depending on which you choose who must guide his clan through this new land, seeking allies and defending against threats. Along the way, you’ll unmask shadowy organisations, engage in political intrigues and experience some parts of Norse mythology in a rather direct manner.
Valhalla largely takes place in Britain, although the prologue is set in Norway. Both locations are spectacular the sharpness of the mountains and coastline in the latter contrast beautifully with the rolling dales of the former. There is a staggering amount of ancient Britain to explore in this game and, for the most part, it is lovely. There are two problems with it, though first, this is the buggiest Assassin’s Creed since the famously-troubled Unity.
I can’t count the number of times a faceless NPC wandered past during an otherwise touching moment, for example, or that my horse would just go mad and launch me into the earth. When everything’s working, this is a beautiful game; sadly, hiccups are frequent enough to be worth mentioning. The second problem Valhalla faces is arguably even more damning it feels...hollow. There’s this massive open world, sure, but why should you explore it? Why should you care? Normally, that’s down to the main storyline but, as much as I like Eivor as a protagonist, the story isn’t the kind that you look forward to unravelling more of the further in you go.
Indeed, there have been times when I’ve finished a quest arc and thought ‘oh god, how much more of this is there?’ Don’t get me wrong that’s not because Valhalla is bad, but there are an awful lot of places to go and things to do. That could have been a strength, but most of them aren’t that compelling outside of the main story, and the main story itself feels like it goes on a bit longer than it should. This is not a new criticism Valhalla’s two immediate predecessors, Origins and Odyssey were also criticised for having a lot of ‘content’ without necessarily giving players enough of a reason to want to play through it.
However, from a personal point of view, they both each enjoyed one significant advantage that Valhalla doesn’t — their setting. Running around ancient Egypt was absolutely fantastic, and exploring ancient Greece was even more so; by comparison, 9th century Britain perhaps does suffer a bit. So there you have it Valhalla is a wonderful achievement and, at times, does feel like the best that Assassin’s Creed has to offer. At other times, however, it’s hard not to be a bit disappointed by it and what it could have been. It’s certainly one of the most magnificent and expansive open worlds in gaming, even if there’s a certain shallowness to it; and, if you’re a huge Assassin’s Creed fan or if you’re just willing to overlook some flaws, there is still a lot to like here.
Arjun Sukumaran
(Arjun is a gamer, book lover and an all-round renaissance man)