Basically: Assassins Creed. Review scores below 9. Treat with extreme prejudice.
You see, when you have a look at a gamerankings, or metacritic even on the most critically acclaimed games (like Bioshock, GTA, etc) theres always one idiot that wants to be the big man by giving Gears of War a six or something ridiculous. It just so happens that in the case of Assassins Creed a whole bunch of these˜little big men have happened to release the exact same review at the game.
Its totally part of the tall poppy syndrome: the gaming press have spent the last year making it fashionable to adore Assassins Creed, and now it seems like they're hell bent on making it fashionable to bag on it relentlessly. Is it elitism? Is it a pretentious la-dee-da desire to make themselves seem smarter than the developers? Or a symptom of the rushed way reviewers have to play through games (check out [link name=penny-arcade's]
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/11/14[/link awesome blog on the subject for more details). I have no idea, but it just doesn't make any sense.
Games should be judged on their own merits, but when average run of the mill games like Kane and Lynch, or Tony Hawk's are getting higher reviews than a revolutionary game like Assassin’s Creed because ˜the missions were a bit repetitives, something is seriously wrong. AC undoubtedly has its flaws, but the game does so many astonishing things in terms of control and its amazing open world, that niggly things can surely be overlooked?
But the real tragedy of the whole situation is that Ubisoft probably won't make the same mistake again. And by mistake we mean make any sort of investment in creating an interesting, innovative new IP. I sincerely hope you guys will enjoy Tom Clancy's Advanced Brain Training Shooting Hero 6 because theres a good chance its all you'll be getting from Ubi in the near future.
Bottom line; don't trust reviews, except ours were awesome!
Submit a Story
Register
Get Started
Webmaster Tools
Comments with -5 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.
I haven't played it so I can't judge, but this article seems to completely rule out the fact that they didn't like the game.
I've heard some good reviews from my friends, but still, It's possible they just really didn't like the repetitiveness. I personally don't mind that much of repeated gameplay, but that's just me.
Whoever you quoted that from is a complete dickhead. Because a majority of reviewers aren't loving the game they're WRONG? Here's a thought: THIS dude is wrong. It's possible for a hyped game to be bad. Very possible. That's exactly what happened, and if this dude loves the game anyway because he forces himself to, fine. It's a shame he has an idiot about it.
Of course you wouldn't recall ever being one. Pretty much everybody else does, though.
Every review should have the reviewers opinion infused into their review, however there should also be professionalism in which the reviewer can see how people could also enjoy it, or see how people could also not enjoy it depending on their own opinion.
Reviews are lacking that professionalism now. GameTrailers are the only source right now that I see as the most professional.
Also Dezvouse, There is a jog button which you run, then there is a sprint where you run a lot faster.
I also suggest reading the penny arcade article as that is good too.
I think this game should be at least 8.7/10 then the horrific scores its getting. Non of the reasons i read even Justifies their scores.
Very, VERY rarely does repetition make for a good game. This isn't one of them.
:V
Same shit happened to Heavenly Sword and i found that game to be kick ass and very good implementation of the tilt axis feature. And i would rated that game 9/10 i found it stellar, was is short yeah but to me length doesn't make a good game hell look at God of War that game usually is 9 hours and it gets perfect reviews. I see no justification of their scores. Sorry your failing Reenee to see the whole point of the article.