Talk:Assassin's Creed Odyssey

Untitled
I'm not really familiar with how talk pages work, but I'm hoping someone more qualified than I can add a section (or at least a paragraph) on the controversy re: the forced heterosexual relationship in the DLC and subsequent changes the developers made: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-25-ubisoft-is-replacing-assassins-creed-odysseys-controversial-dlc-ending-tomorrow


 * It is currently discussed in an odd place, in the last para under Gameplay. This article needs better balance (far too much plot, too little detail on dev, and reception), but this facet is covered. --M asem (t) 07:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No development
Origins and Valhalla feature development sections. Perhaps good to include one here. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead section
- I definitely disagree that the lead section needs to be this long. When I was rewriting the whole article, I was following the examples of Assassin's Creed Origins, which was already reviewed and passed the GA criteria. While Origins is still about the conflict between the assassins and the templars, this installment intentionally stayed away from it and we didn't need three rows just to describe the core idea about what assassins or templars are. The reception paragraph was similarly overly-detailed. OceanHok (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said that the lead section needs to be this long, only that the removal of plot-relevant information should be avoided. I actually agree that the introduction is too long, but all other articles covering entries in the Assassin's Creed series detail the nature of the Assassin-Templar conflict in their lede; this includes Assassin's Creed Origins, which you used as inspiration for you edit. As repetitive (or redundant?) as that might seem, we cannot assume that readers of these articles have the background knowledge necessary to warrant its exclusion from the lede. Also, your point regarding "[the] Assassins [are] not even in this game and Layla part accounts for like 0.5% off the game" is entirely subjective and could quite easily be argued to be wrong. -- JascaDucato (talk &#124; contributions) 16:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the context of Odyssey, that makes no sense because there are no assassins or hidden ones. There are no templars/Order of the Ancients either. Their inclusion in Origins makes sense because the conflict between the assassins and the templars actually play a big role in the story. This is not the background knowledge they need if they didn't even show up in the game. My original version only have "Odyssey is the first mainline Assassin's Creed title not to focus on the conflict between the Assassins and Templars", which I think is sufficient already. If you think it is really unclear maybe I can add that they are two opposing factions. It would also be ironic since I spent a large amount of time in the development section talking about how this game is not about the conflicts between the assassins and the templars, only to have it show up in the lead explaining in detail what this conflict is about. OceanHok (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think the Layla part/modern-day segment is important to the game at all. The lead is all about summarizing, so not mentioning her in the lead is not a big deal if she doesn't play a significant role. OceanHok (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the fundamental problem with your edit; your assertion that "there are no Assassins or Hidden Ones [..] Templars/Order of the Ancients either" is incorrect. The Order of the Ancients do appear in-game (by mention in the base-game and as the principal adversairies of the Legacy of the First Blade DLC), as do the Assassins and Templars – in the modern-day sequences you arbitraily dismiss. Even if they did not, however, the fact that this entry is a part of the Assassin's Creed series means the descriptions are warranted. I haven't had time to review the edits you've made in the Development section, but if you have spent "a large amoutn(sic) of time in the development section talking about how this game is not about the conflicts between the assassin and templar" then I would be inclined to believe your edits are geared towards shifting the narrative of the article towards one that conveys your specific point of view. I.e. that this is not a 'true' Assassin's Creed game.


 * EDIT: Your comment that the modern-day segment "is not important to the game at all" in fact proves my point. This is less about making the article concise, and more about making it known that Odyssey isn't a true AC game. -- JascaDucato (talk &#124; contributions) 17:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what is the problem here. It is a main instalment in the series that doesn't follow the established formula. It is not my point of view. The developer explicitly said they want to stay away from the assassin-templar conflict, and reviewers also noticed this change. What I think is not relevant. We need to detail the conflict between Assassin and templars because this is an Assassin's Creed game? When does this become a formula that we need to follow? Even if the assassins and templars show up in the game, that do not mean that they are (1) important to the plot (2) essential to readers for understanding the plot. I don't mind you list out everything in detail in the plot section but this was not needed in the lead.
 * I am deeply concerned by the words you have chosen, in particularly how I was "shifting the narrative of the article towards one that conveys your specific point of view". The rewrite I did was based on what was described by reliable sources and no original research was involved. Your accusation here is unjust and unfair. OceanHok (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable lack of citations?
I noticed that in the beginning paragraphs there are no citations. Information about the publishing company, the game's features (in this instance, the notice of open world), and other information about the game in question. PerryPerryD (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDECITE. Citations are not required in lede as long as sourced in body. --M asem (t) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know, That clears up a lot of confusion PerryPerryD (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary
, in my opinion your edits are currently interfering with a GA review that is underway. There is no requirement, or expectation, for articles about fictional works within the same series to present content with the same parity as other related titles. The plot summary you are insisting on adding to the page is just bloat since Fate of Atlantis is not discussed anywhere in the article with any meaningful real world context outside of a brief summary identifying it. Unlike Legacy of the First Blade, it is not a notable DLC in its own right and there appears to be no notable reviews aggregated by Metacritic. In fact, most of the other Assassin's Creed articles badly need cleanup and a much-needed trim to their excessive plot summaries. Since we need more developmental info or reception as opposed to more plot, I will revert you for now. Please seek consensus on this talk page since you insist on adding a plot summary of a minor DLC just for the sake of it. Haleth (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I can assure you, the DLC is not "minor" in terms of plot. It continues from the main story's ending, and there is significant character/plot development that is continued/discussed in AC Valhalla. I'd argue that having a basic plot summary for all major expansions is needed, for the sake of sufficient information and preventing unexplained gaps that can be observed between titles. We can talk about trimming the summaries if needed, but my stance is that these are not "minor" by any means. User: The boss 1904 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's minor within the context of Wikipedia's coverage of the topic from a real world perspective, not from an in-universe or lore perspective. I should point out that the plot details weren't simply erased or deleted. I actually moved the original plot summary which was present in an earlier edit, slightly modified, to Alexios and Kassandra. The vast majority of the three episodes' plot beats had more to do with the player character's actions within the simulated realms anyway. So far, the editor who is primarily responsible for bringing this article to GA status, OceanHok, have not objected to my actions. If you are concerned about readers being confused about how Layla's story arc in Valhalla is tied to Odyssey in terms of plot developments in the former, that should be concisely explained in the page for Valhalla itself, which could be adequately summarized in a few sentences anyway (the characters and setting section comes to mind). If a reader wishes to have a more comprehensive understanding of the "unexplained gaps" in the series, as in a coherent meta narrative explaining the story significance of the DLC's, Wikipedia is not the place. Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Wikia/Fandom is the way to go. Haleth (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not see anything in WP:NOTGUIDE that reinforces your point on not having plot summaries for DLCs. We can't cover every single side quest or minor addition, but major expansions IMO should be given an exception, given their purpose in expanding the main plot and bridging the gap between each main title. I do not believe that relegating the DLC reference to just "a few sentences" in the Valhalla page is sufficient in its current state, because the lack of DLC plot summary in the Odyssey page creates a noticeable gap for readers, who may not necessarily know such information is only contained in a separate character page. Readers should also not have to depend on reading character pages to get the full summary of a game's story. User: The boss 1904 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think neither of you is wrong. While it is true that the main page mostly discusses the main game and not its DLC, content about the DLC should ideally be placed here in due weight because Fate of Atlantis' parent article is Odyssey rather than Alexios/Kassandra. Some GA (Horizon Zero Dawn) include plot summary of DLC, some GA (Spider-Man) didn't, and some GA (Deus Ex: Mankind Divided) mention them using just one paragraph. In short, I would not have objected both of your actions, because we don't have any guideline currently. OceanHok (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OceanHok, I agree with your interpretation of due weight in the context of this discussion, in that the length and depth of any prose material should be proportional to the amount of coverage that can be found in reliable sources, though I concede that the current guidelines do not provide a precise and clear direction on the appropriate course of action on how to handle DLC content. But what I do need to clarify is that, The boss 1904's argument is about the re-inclusion of full length plot summaries for both of the DLC's back in the article because it's supposed to help readers understand the plot points of Assassin's Creed Valhalla. I'd argue that this is something for the editors of Valhalla to work on and find a solution for; I find the argument that "readers should also not have to depend on reading character pages to get the full summary of a game's story" both unconvincing and ironic since it is essentially saying that readers are expected to consult a full length exposition of Odyssey plot points on this page in order to understand what is written in Valhalla by that page's editors, when that shouldn't be the case. I did not remove information about the development and reception about Fate of Atlantis, if there is any. My motivation for splitting Legacy of The First Blade in the first place was because that expansion received enough reviews to get a Metacritic score as well as coverage about the controversy it caused, the fact that it is hosting a pre-existing plot summary from an earlier version of this article was purely incidental. I agree with the approach taken by Deus Ex: Mankind Divided where one paragraph adequately summarizes what all the DLC's were about, and I would argue that the second paragraph under the "Release" heading already serves the same purpose. The vast majority of the story content for Fate of Atlantis still revolves around the Eagle Bearer character, so if we must have an expanded story summary about each of the DLC episodes (I personally prefer that it is omitted entirely), the fictional biography section would make do since it is directly relevant to the character's story arc, but would be out of place on the "parent article" for the base game because it barely discusses all other aspects of Fate of Atlantis, and for good reason; none of the Fate of Atlantis episodes on any platform attracted the volume of reviews that the first expansion got, not enough to even have a Metacritic score, so it is reasonable to call it a non-notable DLC in spite of its in-universe importance. In my opinion, WP:NOTGUIDE not only proscribes the use of Wikipedia articles as gameplay guides, it also makes a determination that the exception suggested by The boss 1904, which is to give "the full summary of a game's story" and connect the narrative dots across multiple games supposedly for the reader's benefit, is irrelevant and better suited for a corresponding article on Wikia/Fandom Haleth (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ...should...should i mention this in the review?@Haleth PerryPerryD 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Haleth@OceanHok Hi, Im the GA Reviewer for this article. I've thoroughly analyzed this article to the best of my ability. I was able to find some issues, but I have fixed all of them myself. The only thing that remains is this dlc discussion. Should it be included or not? once you decide this I can make my final decision. PerryPerryD 19:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After further analysis, I noticed that the dlc IS mentioned in due weight in the article already, just not in the plot/gameplay sections. Therefor, I think we have arrived at a neutral point. Beyond this point I can NOT identify any further issues with this article. (Also the starter of the debate deactivated sooo) PerryPerryD 19:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, and I appreciate that you came to the conclusion that DLC content is, or at least the plot elements, are appropriately covered on this article without the need for a significant expansion to include a summary of the DLC's story beats since it has not had proportionate coverage in reliable sources. Haleth (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Discovery Tour
There seems to be a bit of back-and-forth over whether Discovery Tour should be mentioned in the introduction of this article. Whilst I personally see no harm in mentioning it in the lead, I have wondered for a while now if we have enough citable content to justify the creation of a Discovery Tour (Assassin's Creed) article that covers the three existing iterations? We should then be able to limit the detail that this article goes into covering it. -- JascaDucato (talk &#124; contributions) 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discovery Tous is largely side content that does not need to be mentioned in such detail, especially in the lead paragraph. A section in the wider Assassin's Creed article would be suffice. OceanHok (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a point in making a separate article for Discovery Tour considering it isn't too popular and I haven't found enough outside sources mentioning it. As for whether it should be mentioned in the lead section of each article, I think it's fine for Origins since it was the game to introduce it, but in the later games it's pretty much the same thing. However I have nothing against it being mentioned there, so I'm fine with either outcome. General Clanker (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whilst Discovery Tour might not be "too popular" amongst the target demographic of the game's they're based on, they products do serve a purpose. In the UK, for instance, all three versions are used to varying degrees by schools and other educational facilities (Educational tours from Assassin’s Creed games to be used across 52 schools in UK) and has been covered by news organisations like the BBC, The Times (paywall), and more. I'm not sure if the platform is being used in the same manner internationally, but I would be surprised if it wasn't. -- JascaDucato (talk &#124; contributions) 21:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Confusion of Character Nationality
This probably isn't the best place to ask, but is the player character Greek or Roman? I ask because he or she becomes a Spartan, but the accent (Kassandra's accent anyway), the way they pronounce names like Ikaros, and the belief in Zeus by the main character and the child at the start of the game remind me more of Greeks than Romans. If you want to delete this if it's not a good question, go ahead. I'll ask somewhere else. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Spartans are Greek, as is Kassandra. -- JascaDucato (talk &#124; contributions) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I always thought Spartans were Roman. Especially after playing Ryse: Son of Rome. Thanks for the clarification. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)