This article was recommended to me by my phone and I just have a few comments to make. Not so much about how much you like or dislike a game, games need criticism to become better. What is really annoying me about this article specifically is that it was written by someone who repeatedly in the article proved that he had no idea what he was talking about. He makes a very bold claim by saying that ACV would be a lot better if it just simply was not an AC game. To make that kind of a claim you need to have an intimate knowledge of the franchise and be able to identify common themes in each installment. Then in the second paragraph, he straight up said the words, "haven't touched the series since the original." The vast majority of fans of the AC franchise almost universally agree that AC1 was terrible, and here is a link where a lot of people just straight up comment their order.
Consistently you see AC1 in the bottom half. So, how does this Richard Currie have any idea what he is talking about when he has not even completed what many die-hard fans would consider being one of the worst games in the franchise? He simply does not have the authority to be able to make such a claim.
Currie continues to build on his lack of knowledge when he appears to think that the assassins from the original game were the only group that represented the creed in the world. He does this in his sixth paragraph where he also makes fun of the lore despite clearly having a massive misunderstanding of any of it. I'll be the first to admit that AC does not have the best lore in a video game out there, but I think that criticism of the lore should come from someone that, y'know, actually has an understanding of it rather than this guy. Then when discussing Eivor's gender he again makes for of the lore calling it stupid while also getting the lore fundamentally wrong. The game practically spells out for you that sometimes the female Eivor is the canonical Eivor and other times the male Eivor is the canon.
Then we finally get to Currie's criticism of the animus. This is honestly a very controversial topic in the fandom, so I am not going to claim an absolute authority on this but I will express what I have to say about it as a fan of the modern-day sections of the games. Firstly, they have been a staple of the game series since the first installment, and to completely do away with them now would be way too extreme of a maneuver. The modern-day sections of the game in my eyes are the real plot. They are what I keep coming back for. I still remember my first time getting wrapped up in all the things that Abstergo did to Desmond and deciding that I needed to put a stop to Abstergo. Secondly, the modern-day sections provided us with a cast of characters that I love. The modern-day characters offer a way for the player to emotionally connect and relate to someone in the game. Ever since the first time Shaun basically told me to screw off and that he was busy, I knew I was going to love him forever. I'll admit that Layla was not the most compelling character for me until Valhalla came out, but now with her character arc going like it is, I love her. People like Currie call the modern-day sections immersion-breakers, but for me, they are the bread and butter that keeps me immersed.
Before finishing his article he lays into the bugs surrounding the game, to which I only have one thing to say. Long gone are the days where games are released mostly bug-free. Every single AAA title to come out is released with mountains and mountains of bugs and it has been this way for damn near a decade, if not, ever since the release of the 360 and the PS3. Anybody else remembers Skyrim's launch? Or what about GTA V? Fallout 4? Ghost of Tsushima, ACOd, Red Dead Redemption both 1 & 2, the list goes on and on and on and if you are expecting to ever get another mostly bug free release, then I hope you let me know because I want to congratulate that company on caring more about their fans than their profit margin.