Its was a great game, personally I think Origins was still better but it was the first to implement the new game changes/mechanics and the Egyptian setting was dope. So in terms of Odyssey, I do see some people sleeping on it but overall I think its right where it should be. Same here. Origins #1, Odyssey close second.

Valhalla has about 250% more quality control than Odyssey. It is, however, long as shit, and does get a bit "samey" after a while. About 30 hours in here, so a lot yet to do and unlock, but I think it's closer to Origins than Odyssey. If Origins is in one end and Odyssey is on another, Valhalla is right in the middle.

Its harder to run than origins, I have a RX 590 which is 15-20% faster than your 480 and I get 35 fps at 1440p ultra and about 43 fps at 1080p ultra. People throw the word "optimize" to describe game that is easy on hardware. People need to stop doing that. What I can tell you is this game is demanding. Welcome to the home of Assassin's Creed Odyssey and the Ancient Greece Discovery Tour. But imo Origins has a better story, Odyssey has better side quests and can Origins in 100 times better in my opinion. I liked all AC games beside Odyssey. Its trash as Assassin's Creed game and its trash as RPG game. I played it for 10-15 hours and just gave up. The amount of repetitive content is unbearable. 95% of side quests is "go there kill him" or "go there retrieve it" type of quests. 1Q3Qt9d. 335 959 105 792 482 279 175 706

is assassin's creed origins or odyssey better