By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zkuq on 02 January 2021
Edit Thread
JEMC said:
Zkuq said:

I liked both DLCs. However, the first one isn't that great except for minor lore additions, and it has some annoying-to-navigate terrain. It's quite decent but worse than the base game, I think. The second one offers much more content that also has higher quality, but it's also quite disconnected from the base game. If you like the base game, 6 € isn't too bad for the DLCs I'd say, but of course it also depends on whether you care about the percentage increase (50 %) of the absolute amount (6 €). I would personally have been more than happy to pay just 6 € for the DLCs but then again, I've played every major Assassin's Creed game out there so there's that.

Thanks for your comment. The thing is that I either get the gold edition now with the DLCs or I just won't be getting them because they will cost more either alone or with the Season Pass.

And you've played all of them? Wow. I stopped caring about that franchise after AC 3 killed it for me. And while I played Black Flag later, and enjoyed it, the games that followed never picked my attention. But then came the pause (a well deserved and necessary pause) and they came back with what looked like a new formula with Origins and the games that came after. And so here I am, jumping on it again.

Yeah. Unlike most, I'm interested in the modern day story as well, and I really like the historical settings. And I've also been hoping for the series to get better, but it took until Origins for it to actually happen. I actually didn't mind AC3 at all, but starting from Black Flag, I felt like the series went downhill (and in some ways, starting from AC2). Unity was a glimmer of hope with some neat ideas, but I don't think any game had annoyed be like Unity with some of its design choices... But personally I feel like Origins got so much right that the series has been on the right track ever since, and I feel like with Valhalla we're finally roughly where the series should have been from the start. Anyway, I think that leaves about three games I didn't really like all that much (and even they were OK), but I've liked the rest. I can definitely see why people got fed up with the series though!

JEMC said:
Zkuq said:

I didn't have a problem playing Total War: Three Kingdoms on my GTX 770 with 2 GB of VRAM (at 1080p). It's not all that great, but I don't think I even had to play on the lowest settings. I'm sure there are more demanding games as well and you probably can't run all modern games with an outdated GPU, but there are certainly even some recent high-profile games that run just fine on outdated cards.

Ok, maybe more than 4Gb is not mandatory for every recent game, but if you look at the requirements of most games, you'll agree with me that if you're buying a GPU right now, 4GB is not a good investment.

To be honest, I've only been looking at GPU requirements themselves, and even that just occasionally because I tend to get games years after release anyway (mostly because digital purchases are worth less to me for several reasons, but also because of my outdated card). I think GTX 770 has finally started falling out of minimum requirements only in 2019 or 2020 (so I finally upgraded to to a GTX 970 temporarily until I can actually get a proper new card for a decent price). Judging by the fall of GTX 770 though, 4 GB does indeed not seem like a great investment in the long term.