There will be spoilers in this post, and I can't spoiler block things on my phone (which I'm writing this on). Just keep that in mind before reading. This will also, probably, be too long and not worth reading, but I feel like I need to get it off my chest anyway.

So, yeah.... I consider myself a fan of this series. I've played, and enjoyed, 1, 2, Brotherhood, 3, Black Flag, and Syndicate. There's definitely been some highs and lows, but I don't think any of the entries I've played have been God awful when it came to their main stories.. The only thing I've felt mixed/negative about has been the various ways they've handled the "modern day" stuff. When it comes to the stories featured in the past, I feel it's been fairly consistent (with ac2 being the definite highpoint). Then Origins came along, and.... Yeah.... There really isn't anything nice for me to say. The only thing I can think of is that the setting is cool, which isn't enough to save bad storytelling.

Besides that, everything concerning story/characters feels so disparate and shoddily put together. It's easy to say the game has bad pacing, but in reality it feels like it has no pacing at all. The same can be said for character development; it's non-existent. The one moment that quantifies this best is near the end of the game: Bayek and Aya enter this weird laser globe cave where Bayek discovers his best friend is dead at the hands of the, ostensible, main villain. It feels like the game considers this to be an important and emotional moment, but it just doesn't work. The layers of why it doesn't (in my opinion) is as follows.

•The friend was introduced at the verrry beginning of the game – 50 hours ago in my playthrough– for, maybe, 10 or 15 minutes. After that he is never seen or heard from again. At first I completely forgot he existed until I did some googling to refresh my memory. They completely throw him away for the vast majority of the game, then try to leverage him for an emotional climax.

•The main villain has been anonymous for most of the game, and when he's finally revealed they do nothing to make him an actual character. Hes, pretty much, a face and a name. The motivation for hating him is he killed your son, but you are never given a good reason to feel a connection between Bayek, Aya, and there son. Again, the son shows up for a very brief amount of time during a forgettable mission and the short cutscene where he dies, and they expect me to have formed an emotional attachment? The son ends up feeling like a prop in service of the overall revenge tale, rather than a character I actually care about.

•Finally, Bayek and Aya are completely one dimensional in a similar way to Kratos in God of War, but unintentionally so. The bulk of their character arc is "son murdered", "they are very good at killing people", and "they are going to get revenge". This concept isn't necessarily bad, but the legwork necessary to form a connection with them and their strife is never done. I don't really know anything about who they are, or what they are like (besides very basic character traits and that they are good killers). This reapplies itself when Bayek finds his murdered friend. I end up not caring about the moment, or how the protagonists feel about it.

These inconsistencies in storytelling, unfortunately, make up most of how this game is put together. Characters are introduced, things happen, and none of it makes sense. It never comes together, and it ends up feeling entirely purposeless. After seeing people say they're actually enjoying the story, it makes me feel like I might be crazy. Like, the story in this game isn't too far off from something like "The Room" in how badly it's put together; thats how low my feelings are on it.

I'm not trying to change/belittle/judge anyone else's opinion on it. If I came across that way I apologise. People like what they like and I respect that fact. With that said, I'm very curious to hear some positive thoughts on the story, or even other negative ones. I definitely appreciate any input you guys have!

I agree with almost every point but its on the subject of its open world setting rather than the story but I just wanted something to add.

I feel that the entirely open world aspect is so great that the main story is countering against it, so to speak. Thats mostly because in a game like The Witcher series the main quests was done in a bulk where the scripted events/important cutscenes happen, after that bulk you could do the side missions, side activities, etc. This is not the case here, where you can just about everything at your own leisure without a script inbetween everything, showcasing that something important is happening via a cutscene, like in The Witcher 3, where it felt like you're playing an interactive dark fantasy series when you went on though the main quest.

In AC:O they bombard you with stuff and its up to do you follow the patch or do every side thing you found, basically distracting you for dozends of hours, making the main quest to feel so distached that the game could perhaps be better without it. The Story would've really worked if the whole game would still just be Assassins Creed and not an RPG of sorts.

This is to say, in regards of being Assassins Creed, AC:O has the best setup for a story in any of the AC games when it comes on how it is set up compared to all the other ACs (except maybe the first one, I found the big reveal near the end to be the most impactful on in the franchise). But all of that story based flavor and potential in AC:O is restrained by everything else the game offers and it shows a whole lot.

EDIT: Not against the thread creator, but I also never got why people say that AC2 has the best story. Ezio was an interesting chracter no doubt, but apart from the beginning and of course Forli (Sforza contributed a whole lot to Ezios chraracter, too). At least they tried to stay interesting by adding the whole context towards the Isu precursor race and adding story with hidden collectables, but otherwise the general plot wasn't really more interesting than the first AC was.

Also there were 2 whole other games adding to the entirely of Ezios life. We can't really value AC:O against AC2, AC:BH and Revelations.

The main overall revenge narrative is whatever but I really like Bayek as a character and how he interacts with the world and there's a lot of really nice side story content. I think a lot of the individual mini-plots associated with each target work really well too.

Well it can't be the best thing ever, and there's only two options so...

@efesell: Same. I don't even entirely know what's going on in the main plot outside of some of my limited knowledge of the time period, but I really love Bayek and many of the sidequests have been delightful and really hammered home the whole Egyptian Sheriff thing.

So, I can't genuinely say the main story is bad, but it's definitely disjointed as he'll, works against the brilliant open world, and feels kind of one dimensional right now.

I would argue that just means its an Assassins Creed game. The franchise hasn't had a good story since AC2/AC:Brotherhood. I am only like 5 or 6 hours into the game right now but I'm enjoying it.

AC Origins main story is so horrendously bad its kinda funny especially as its running counter to the excellent world building and surprisingly decent side side quest, tbh though I'm not a AC fan I've found everyone completely bonkers nonsense.

I liked it. The story puts you (quite ridiculously) in the middle of of some epic historical moments which I appreciated.

They also treated the setting and time period with great respect. the whole Egyptian/ Greek/ Roman conflicts were really well told and they didn't have to be.

HBO's 'Rome' is a fantastic show and season 1 episode 8 covers much of what you'll face in the final act of this game

All I really remember is that the "Origins" part of the game felt completely un-earned. It's like they wrote a story for the game, and then at the end they went "oh yeah, we need to actually make the creed and stuff". I realize there's a (very loose) connection between the main story and the creation of the creed, but instead of focusing the game around it (I expected the whole Cleo part to basically be the beginnings of the creed) it was just haphazardly introduced in the last 10% of the game.

@ripelivejam: It doesn't need to be the best thing ever, and it would be ridiculous to expect it to be. It also shouldn't have ended up being incoherently bad. Also, what do you mean by the 2 options thing?

I've been enjoying it so far, and it is a totally serviceable backdrop to murdering dudes in the desert. Here is the fundamental problem I have when people criticize most game stories for being poorly paced and "terrible." : What, in your opinion is a really, really good story? Most likely, it will be a book you read or a movie you watched. Have you ever read a book or watched a movie that was 50 hours long? There is the problem.

I genuinely enjoyed all of the story. Bayek's initial quest is a typical quest of vengeance but a good one, and Bayek is made out to be a really good character. When it starts getting into the politics of nations and the "Assassin's Creed" stuff, I was also captivated. This game was fantastic.

I mean, its Assassins Creed. Story has never been the strong suit. It had occasionally some decently written characters, but the story was always bad.

I haven't played this yet so I don't actually know how this game handles the historic events stuff but that's one of the things I like least in these games. Since 2 (maybe even 1 I don't remember) they constantly shoehorned the main character into historical events whether it made sense or not. 3 was the worst with it where there was no lead up to it happening and you just happen to be in the right place at the right time and it just so happens that you were the secret unsung hero and these events in history would not be what it is without you. That stuff just feels pandering and trite to me especially when its done as recklessly as it was in 3.

Does Origins at least handle that stuff with some nuance or subtlety?

Honestly... not really but it's not offensive or anything.

I'm definitely a mark for that era of history (mainly Roman, but general ancient history) and the game did surprise me with how directly it involved the main character in the events that transpired.

The last hour or so is a bit of a historical roller coaster with the situations it puts you in. My only real gripe is that the end felt kinda rushed. The game could have stretched the last hour into three and fleshed out the missions somewhat because a lot of stuff is going on.

Overall I really enjoyed it the game, but I have my biases cause I love the setting

Terrible? No. That said, not as satisfying as I would have hoped for, sure (I mean, I like the past AC stories, but I wasn't expecting much from this game). I thought it was much better than the boring stories of Syndicate and Unity. Origins at least felt integral, even if its execution wasn't amazing. Also, on a side note, I felt compelled to watch the movie since I had gotten Origins and heard they shoved some stuff in the game to connect it to the films. It's not a great film, but yeah characters in the film are mentioned in the game. Also, I read before that the Arno Dorian from Unity was related to Fassbender's character, and that's also true going by a throwaway point in the movie where it shows his lineage and Arno pops up for one second.

I don't think it's terrible. It's a typical Revenge story not really looking to reinvent the wheel. It's done well enough.

I can't really speak on Aya, but I really like Bayek. He is like a kind Egyptian Punisher who is more than willing to take time out of his busy day to help people out by brutally murdering fools. I love seeing him interacting with people he's helping out with the biggest smile on his face. Meanwhile I just killed 5 soldiers so I could get 10 pieces of iron off them not 5 minutes before speaking to them. It's hard not to love him.

(Spoiler, obviously): One great thing near the end is after Cleopatra betrays you and Aya, and Aya swears revenge. Bayek and Aya come up with the idea to start the brotherhood in this house, full of random people. I think I recognized about 2 people out of 10, due to how the story doesn't actually introduce anyone else. Everyone is a side character that you meet from (largely) optional side quests. They have no personality outside of asking Bayek for his help, or telling him to go kill some people.

Even Cleopatra and Julius Caear, who are important historical figures, are reduced to some of the most one dimensional characters in an AC game. Cleo's betrayal has so little impact, both on the characters in the game, and the player, because of how she is presented.

If you think about past AC games, most of them had good characters (ficitonal or not) surrounding the player character: Leonardo da Vinci, Achilles, Adewale and James Kidd, Henry Green and so on. There's just not like anyone Bayek in this game. Aya is supposed to fill that role but her primary function seems to be to tell Bayek to kill more people, sleeps with him, then abruptly leaves. This happens at least three times during the game.

The removal of the Animus encyclopedia/database also really hurts this game, because characters are presented like players should know them, when I'd wager at least 45 to 50% or players don't have a history degree in pre-Christ Egypt. That's just my guess though.

As for the present day stuff, most of it actually kind of worked for me, despite the removal of Shaun/Rebecca. Layla can be an interesting character that I assume Ubisoft will do nothing with, same as the present day characters from AC: Syndicate, AC: Rogue, or AC: 4. They also recast William Miles, and John de Lancie is SORELY missed.

I've found that really good stores are incredibly difficult to fit into open world games. The story in Origins seems very "video game plot" in that it largely exists to offer a reason for the gameplay to happen.

The high points of AC2 are largely tapping into the same story beats of the DaVinci Code - that is, finding a historical mystery or series of missing pieces, and filling those gaps with a conspiracy tale. But I think if Ubisoft had continued down that road, we'd spend forever in late medieval/renaissance Europe because prior to that, we never quite have enough pieces to build that kind of story - And it would mean going even further into the Pandora's Box of the medieval Catholic Church, which may be a bit controversial for some.

Personally? I would love to play all those renaissance europe games, I think it'd be neat for example to see a game set in the Reformation era, when a group of hyper-protestants basically took over the city of Munster and set up their prophet figure as a local tyrant. You've got tyrannical fundamentalists beating down the population that can easily play the role of templar agents, and the Catholic noble who legally owns the place laying siege to the city to serve as your bungling do-gooder that you end up manipulating for your own ends. (If you like the Hardcore History podcast, this is covered in great detail in the Prophets of Doom episode)

And as an alternate, I would stick with the Origins era, and wander over to Rome itself. Plenty of material there, particularly when you get into the mad emperors like Caligula, Nero, Commodus, and so on when political backstabbing was the order of the day. Or go a generation or two pre-Origins and make the Republic tear itself apart.

I just finished and I agree about the story. I think part of the problem with the pacing is how the world opens up. I spent a lot of time between the early assassinations doing side quests and exploring, and by the time I decided to finish the main quest I was so high level I could just plow through the main quest with ease. Going through these quests back to back to back exposes how slapdash the final act of the game is. It’s a revolving door of new people and motivations that should’ve been introduced earlier in the story. If I would’ve been forced to engage with the side quests in later areas (by being discouraged from lingering in early areas), it might’ve fleshed out these characters more...

The story is functional if a little uninspired up until the end of the game.

Then the last act starts unfolding and it's just a hodgepodge of newly introduced characters/plots which are shoehorned into the standard vengeance narrative. It feels lazy and then...

Luckily the game really didn't need a strong story in the first place - just a strong setting, which it has in spades.

I strongly disagree that Bayek is a one dimensional character. He's might be the most fleshed out main protagonist in the series

I think part of the problem is that the whole top-left section of the map is full of Romans and Roman stories, but until the last main Bayak mission, the game gives you no reason to go there other than open world exploration, or the Arena. Its all right there, closest to the starting point of any section on the map, but the main story pulls you the exact opposite direction. Septimius, elephant riding dude and Flavius certainly feel tacked on as the heads of the Snake, and Ceaser being buddies with Spetimius and bringing him to Rome really makes no sense at all, especially if you have knowledge of the actual people and the history of the era. All that being said, I do think that the game actually did a pretty good job with fleshing out Aya as a character, and she seems more suited to really "form" the Assassins, having some loftier goals than just revenge or protecting the week, while Bayak makes a better right-hand or enforcer of her ideas or wishes. If there is a sequel, I can see it focusing on Aya as she navigates the treachery of the 2nd triumvirate, with a few side missions back in Egypt where you play as Bayak who is handling the Antony and Cleopatra situations at the end of the game. Kind of a mirror image thing.

It’s not terrible but then I don’t know how anyone could consider AC2’s story especially good apart from the animus stuff which explored the whole sci-fi aspect of the series that for some reason a lot of people dislike.

Like I’m not sure why some folk are intent on divorcing AC from the real world stuff entirely when I think the dichotomy of the different timelines is the strongest part of the franchise.

That said as far as Origins goes, like others have said Bayek is a surprisingly enjoyable character if not typically one-note. Aya does seem to have wide reaching aspirations than simply getting even - at this point quite a stereotypical videogame take on the bullheaded beefy “dood” and the clever and conniving female counterpart. While some (Bomb crew especially) mock the way these games tie historical figures into their own silly Templar/Assassin narrative I think they’re at their best when this happens. It’s awesome to have this alternate history where people you learned about in books were really out to get an alien golden ball all along. In this sense I wish Origins had a bit more of that stuff.

I found it very disjointed, especially the part at the end where Bayak and Aya suddenly stop loving each other for no reason.

Yeah I thought all the Ass Creed stories were known to be terrible. Picked up Black Flag a month ago and that story is atrocious. Boring, pacing all over the place, usually have no idea why I’m sailing somewhere, huge arbitrary leaps in time, acquaintances becoming friends becoming villains in a matter of 3 missions. I haven’t gone back to it after saying a final farewell to a certain famous villain that got way too little screen time.

Also Ass Creed combat is... I don’t get it. Is there supposed to be a challenge in it somewhere? Wrist blades are as good as swords are as good as axes are as good as rifles. Why bother with different weapon types? I guess that’s for another thread though.

There's a decent story somewhere with political intrigue and interesting character arcs that's muddled by subpar storytelling. The quality of the writing and cinematics vary wildly from one main quest to the next. There's also no buildup to important events, and characters – particularly assassination targets – aren't given proper introductions nor enough screen time. By the end, it was just a frustrating experience for me more than anything else.

@jimmyoct87: idk if they stopped loving each other. They both realized they have important jobs to do and neither of them is over losing their son which is understandable. It was disjointed though and the execution wasn't great but I still got hype as fuck during the last cutscene

Bayek's a great character, I thought, and the final few scenes regarding the formation of the brotherhood and Bayek/Aya reaffirming their resolve were fine-to-good. The actual ending of the overall plot was disjointed as all hell; people complain about how FFXV suffers from the same problem, but I didn't mind it there and it was incredibly jarring for me in this game. I didn't much care for the side quests in Origins, so can't speak to the sub-narratives.

I thought that part made sense. The entire game, Bayek wants to avenge his son because he's trying to put his soul to rest before being able to move on with Aya. Aya, meanwhile, has already buried her past outside of wanting to put her son's soul to rest as well. She realizes that this quest has put her and Bayek on different paths and that somewhere along the way. potentially because they've been apart for so long, they've just drifted from each other.

@jimmyoct87: i would say they stopped loving each other. Like someone else said, its more that they realize they will forever be linked, but their time on earth had a different calling than just each other. I think the game did a pretty good job of showing this when Layla discovered that Aya had been burried in the Hotep Cave along with Bayak so they could be together again in the afterlife, which was extremely important in Egyptian culture.

Man, about the time I was facing a major boss, who was first mentioned 38 seconds before, who is riding a big ass elephant that apparently does little to no damage, I gave up.

The story is very slow, very bland, and very *bad*, which is really disappointing, considering Origins has my favorite setting of any AC game. My favorite part of the story was actually Aya and Bayek, they have a great dynamic, but eventually the formula of "Oh hey were excited to see eachother again! Oh wait we need to talk about us. Fuck, they killed our son, we need to kill them! We need to leave again we'll see eachother soon!" got very old.

I wouldn't call it terrible but I thought it was underwhelming. Especially the lead up to the last assassination, and I totally thought I would be playing Aya (Amunet) killing Cleopatra. Really bummed when I realized the game was ending before that murder. Overall the story was amusing, just not up to the potential of what could be done in that amazing time period IMO.