Metareview: Assassin's Creed (Xbox 360, PlayStation 3)

10/10 should be reserved for a game that is as perfect as can be REASONABLY expected. There's always going to be a flaw, no matter what, but sometimes they are just too small to count against the game. Granted perfect scores are handed out WAY too often these days. A lot of monotonous repetition and a fighting system that's sure to frustrate hack-and-slash fans certainly doesn't sound like a flaw so small it's inconsequential.

I have to agree with MAJORTOM1981... If the reviewer gives a game a perfect score, then there should be absolutely nothing wrong with it... because, hey, it's a PERFECT SCORE. Sure, it's cool if they find some kind of personal, nitpicky thing they dislike, but don't hail it as the best thing since sliced bread(aka "Super Mario 64" around these parts, apparently).

people people, use some common sense. a score of 100 does not mean that the game is perfect, since someone will have a problem with the game. a score of 100 means that this is as good as it gets and the positive overwhelmingly cover the negatives.

What the hell is the point of a 100-point scale if you can't use the "100"? In that case, it becomes a 98-point scale, but then wouldn't the "98" be considered a perfect score?

If the game has no flaws, then sure, give it 100. But if it does, and you give it 100, how would you rate it if it didn't have those flaws?

100?

People seem to forget that most reviewers don't use a 100 point scale. Most use a 5 points scale, where a 4 out of 4 stars equates to an 80. Metacritic converts all reviews to a 100 point scale. I think it would be better if they converted to a 5 point scale, and so assassins creed would have 2 5 stars, 2 4 and a half stars, and 1 3 and a half star.

Its a lot better scale for video games.

Most places use a 5 or 10 point scale. Metacritic converts to 100. Most 100 scores are from 5/5 and 10/10 games. Those scores do not imply perfection.

Some sites, like IGN, use a 100 scale or a 10.0 scale (same thing really). Those sites rarely, usually never, give out 100s. A 5/5 from one site may translate to anywhere from a 88 to a 97 on a 100 scale.

Just look at the weighted average metacritic score and accept that as its "score". It will never be perfect because no game is ever perfect. Past that, just read a review from a site that you trust. If you are still unsure, rent or play the demo.

Forcing some industry standard scale is trivial. Most gamers are intelligent enough to use the current review system just fine. Why change it to help the most ignorant 20%? As for people bitching "perfection is impossible omg why all these 100s." Shut the hell up. Re-read my first paragraph and move on.

Changing to a 4 scale or 9 scale or 97 scale just to reserve a top score that will never be given to avoid "perfect" scores is totally asinine. If you support that idea you are clearly a dumbass.

Also, a 100 score doesn't necessarily mean the reviewer is calling the game perfect. I've had 100s on essays in college where the professor still had some comments in there. Some people just give a 100 when they personally feel that they couldn't ask for more. Some will never give a 100 because it implies perfection.

Just deal with it.

I think it's pretty obvious Games Radar punked out on giving it an objective review.

Principally, the value of 100 represents perfection. Meaning, in the reviewer's eyes, they could not find a single notable flaw in the game whatsoever. The Games Radar reviewer did in fact have his own complaints about the game play, "It's bogged down by a lot of monotonous repetition and a fighting system that's sure to frustrate hack-and-slash fans," yet he completely contradicts this criticism with a perfect score.
To argue against this by saying no game is ever perfect and can therefore be deserving of a 100/100 score illustrates EXACTLY the current trend/problem of review score inflation.


To reviewers:
Games you do not find perfect cannot, by definition, be scored 100/100. Stop the inflation!

@Negativecool

So what's the highest score a game should get then? Games are so complicated these days that it's doubtful any will ever be "perfect". Beyond that, we are talking about a form of entertainment... which, by nature, is highly subjective anyway. Let's say you find a game that you feel is near perfect, but it has a minor flaw somewhere (maybe the camera is a bit faulty at times) so you give it a 99%. Then another game comes out that you also feel is near perfect, but it's actually more fun. What score do you give it? 99.5%? So what if you find another game better than that? No matter what scale you use you can still paint yourself into a corner. So you need to give up the rather ludicrous idea that "100" must mean "perfect".

The situation with game is no different that with movies. You'll see reviewers give movies 4/4 or 5/5 stars even if they mentioned a minor issue somewhere. it's entertainment and it's thus subjective. A "perfect" score does not mean it's literally perfect. No form of entertainment can ever truly be perfect since factors like "fun" are too subjective.

They didn't say it was perfect. They said it was a 10. If you get an A+ on a paper, it doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be written better; it just means that it was good enough to be assigned the highest grade.

I think the 3 heart rating is the way to go.
/whore

Negativecool,

Gamesradar did not give AC a 100. God damnit aren't any of you ignoramouses listening to anything. Gamesradar gave it a 10/10. That means that they have 10 possible scores to give a game based on their scale and they gave it the highest honor they could. So, it isn't implying perfection. It means better than 9/10.

A 100 score does not mean perfection anyways. It never has. We aren't grading multiple choice math tests. Everyone understands that perfection isn't possible. Capping scores at 99%, 4/5, or 9/10 is just arbitrary and stupid.

You can get a perfect score on a math test. Because entertainment is subjective, there really is no such thing as perfection. But that doesn't automatically mean no game should ever obtain the highest honor possible.

With that said, I do think sites give out the top honor too often. I don't like a 5 point scale for that reason because it means the majority of AAA and upper eschelon AA games will get the same exact score. Though fun and game scores are subjective, they are less subjective than movies (due to the technical aspects of a game) and require a bit more precision in their grading.

GODDAMNIT MAJORTOM! Every god damn metareview some dude comes along and starts a chain of replies with people discussing the philosophy of a perfect score. It's like freakin' deja vu!

"If you get an A+ on a paper, it doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be written better; it just means that it was good enough to be assigned the highest grade."

While i agree with the fact that video games are relatively scored, if your giving a 10/10 or 100, it has to be THE BEST THERE IS.

Doesn't need to be perfect. No, it just needs to be better than all the rest.

Then we get into problems of perception, because i think every video game nerd alive has had the "X is the best video game evaaarrr!!!!" argument at some point.

So theres no point in arguing people. Just accept the fact that reviews are flawed, theres no way to do it unbiased and no way to please everyone.

Vidikron (FU),Jake-

"Because entertainment is subjective, there really is no such thing as perfection."

Thus I said perfect in the eyes of the reviewer. It INARGUABLY makes absolutely no god damn sense to come up with a number of complaints for a game, then give it a PERFECT score. If all he could come up with was praise for the title, then YES 100/100 would make perfect sense.

Think of it this way, to give it a 100/100, that would mean that particular game could NOT have been done any better. If AC couldn't have been done any better in the eyes of the reviewer, how is it he came up with at least to complaints against it?

By your viewpoint, a perfect game is impossible because it is a subjective opinion, and everyone has some complaints, so why argue the 100/100 and just let it be. My viewpoint is that a perfect game is possible BECAUSE it is subjective and varies reviewer to reviewer.
Say for example reviewer A. has absolutely no criticisms for a game that reviewer B. had a few criticisms for. Reviewer A’s grade naturally would reflect that it can’t be done better – 100/100, while reviewer B’s grade would similarly be below 100. Would it make any sense if reviewer B gave it the same score as reviewer A? No!

Vidikron (FU),
I'm not even going argue about selecting arbitrary numbers below 100 when something could have been done better. You're arguing me based on principle, and I am arguing the review based the principle of what 100 means. Arguing each other gets us nowhere.

This really shouldn't be hard to understand, nor should it get you this riled up.

I can see someone giving something a 10/10 on a hundred point scale even it it's not truly "perfect" and has some flaws, but when you have a 100 point scale, a small but not very noticable flaw should take off that 1 or 2 points and make it a 98/100. I have no problem with a 10/10 game, but when it sounds like they have more than a few nit picks, then they should use their more "exact" score.

Anyways, from the sounds of the lack of replayability I'll probably jsut be renting this, like all the Prince of Persia games.

@Negativecool

But you're still ignoring that even if a reviewer gives a game a perfect score using your logic, what happens when two weeks later another "perfect" games along, but this game is also more fun? Any system you can come up with will have flaws. I just think it's silly to expect perfection in a perfect score. I think Grant is closer to the right way of viewing things in saying that a perfect score simply means that the game is the best example of that type of game thus far.

Also, as Jake and others have pointed out, you have to remember that Metacritic and Gamerankings convert all scores to thge 100 point scale, even if they were originially on a 4 or 5 point scale. So a 100 from a site using a 5 point scale doesn't mean perfect at all. It just means it's better than a 4 or 4.5 (or whatever their next lowest score is).

I do agree with you that scores are inflated these days and that most scores are skewed too high, I just don't agree that a perfect score means perfect. It has never meant that in any form of entertainment... or, for that matter, many other things where judging is involved. Never.

Jake - Excellent comment. I was following you just fine but the comparison to education is what fully sold me on your post.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/assassinscreed/review.html?sid=6182793

Gamespot gave it a 9.0 and an Editor's Choice. This is very strange, I have never seen a game get perfect 10s on one side, then 6s and 7s on the other. Either way, I will still be picking this up.

Vidikron (FU)-
"But you're still ignoring that even if a reviewer gives a game a perfect score using your logic..."
My logic is that a game deserves a perfect score when no criticisms can be found by that particular reviewer.

"...what happens when two weeks later another "perfect" games along, but this game is also more fun?"
See previous statement.

"Any system you can come up with will have flaws."
True.

"I just think it's silly to expect perfection in a perfect score."
We differ in our definition of perfection which is precisely the problem. See my first statement as to how I define it.

"I think Grant is closer to the right way of viewing things in saying that a perfect score simply means that the game is the best example of that type of game thus far."
Maybe.

err Jake, I thought this thread was for AC fanboys and not Halo fanboys. Since you have made it an open forum, I'll plant my stake in the ground and say that Crysis is what Halo 3 should have been in terms of setting the standard for story, graphics and innovative gameplay. Halo 3 was another 11/10 for many it seems but compared to the hoard of good games coming out now, it's chump change.

Sure Halo 3 has stats out the wazoo, but only people with low self-esteem really care about stats and where they rank amongst the nerd population.

I did a google search for "jade raymond", the woman has a freaking fan club.

I don't know why they -ed this =\

It's because he's bragging and nobody gives a shit. Hey Shep, my next post will complain about how I didn't get any bacon on my cheeseburger, but I did get a free milkshake. What's that? It's of no importance to anyone but myself? Hmm...

I LOVE CHICKEN [CHKN]4 EVER

Product quality doesn't always translate directly to good sales (and inversely, low product quality doesn't always translate to bad sales). See example: Okami, Psychonauts.

Apples and Oranges

You're talking Halo 3, which is repetitive within a franchise, but most franchises are internally repititive

1Up is talking about repititive in the game itself. And the repitition seems like its only fault, but that's often how adventure games work, they usually feel most "fresh" through the first half of the story, but it can often devolve into little better than grinding about 75% through

The truly great adventure games rise above this, but its not a fatal flaw, Creed is still mostly as awesome as it was made out to be

Okay, if you think Halo 3 was repetitive, why don't you enlighten us on your views how the game should've been made. I say this, cause you must be an expert on video games since franchises are internally repetitive unless there is a genre change.

Hardly any websites reviewed it because of embargoes due to Ubisoft being worried that the story would leak out.

yeah definitely. Out of the 6 reviews up there currently, the only one NOT a 90+ is 1up's so i'm inclined to believe they're wrong

Ya, seriously. I'm under the impression that climbing and jumping around on buildings, murdering bad guys and engaging in skillful combat would be something that I would want to repeat over and over again. I'll probably want more after the game is over.

The cities were also created from historical references, so ya, they are probably similar. Big deal.

That review is like saying Halo is repetitive because all you do is run around and kill guys. i.e. - boil it down and then criticize it.

So there are 2 extremes here. One review that is far too hard on the game, and one that is far too easy. I'll trust the Game Informer one, but I couldn't care less. I know I'm going to love this game.

1up makes a mockery of their reviews. They throw consistency out the window and I doubt their editors take the site very seriously. I'm also inclined to disregard 1up's review.

I really have a hard time with how 1up does its reviews and previews. In short I take everything they say with a grain of salt. I think they are a bunch of jaded whiney babies.

Halo 3 is not repetitive for a shooter. In fact, its best quality is probably the wide range of things that you can do both in campaign and multiplayer. Obviously it has similarities with its previous installments, all sequels do.

In Halo 3, you drive stuff, fly stuff, snipe, melee, take out vehicles with stickies, repel flying bugs, dodge sniper fire, take down scarabs, defend against annoying fludd, and much more. Pacing is the best part about campaign. Pacing has a lot to do with switching things up right before they get too old. This is not including multiplayer, Forge, co-op, skull enhanced play, and Replay, which are much more varied than campaign itself.

They are saying that in Assassin's Creed you do the same thing for the entire game. It doesn't change. The first level is the same as every level afterwards. Saying their review is bogus because "Halo 3 was repetitive too" even though 1up and the mass majority of non-fanboy gamers and critics would disagree with you is just retarded logic.

Wait, I think I just figured out why people are posting so weird in this thread. There are AC fanboys in here. I didn't think this was possible with a multiplatform game. Defending a game that you have never played because one of its 6 scores was average and then using goofy ass logic to back it up. Yep, fanboyism indeed.

Well CoD4 also got a 100/100 one one review. Have you played that game? It's good and all, but it's not even close to perfect. There's no Co-op in the single player! That knocks it down to an 8/10 right off the bat. Basically what I'm saying is that you can't trust these reviews. Someone got paid off.

I want macaroni and cheese now. Thanks.

Lack of co-op in CoD4 maybe knocks it down to a 9.5/10, or 9.0 if you're not planning on indulging in multiplayer. 8/10 would be doing that amazing game a severe disservice.

As for AC, I want it to be awesome, but I'm still not going to buy it with Rock Band this close around the corner. Sorry Ubi.

if you actually played CoD4 you would never give it below a 90.

Bob Evans has a Mac & Cheese in the refrig. section of the supermarket. All you do is pop it in the microwave. It's actually VERY good!

Looking forward to getting Ass. Creed.

I just re-read my meathead comments.

I meant to ask, is this game the best game in existence? Better than all those stated?

100/100 is a pretty big deal. The closest game I would give to a perfect score is Half Life 2.

No, if you have a PERFECT 100/100 hamburger, that doesn't mean you can't have another PERFECT hamburger for lunch next week. It's not like the perfect game is made, and thus all other games must cease.

It's just saying this is a 100 out of 100 EXPERIENCE for them. Maybe they will feel the same way about Mass Effect, or Galaxy. That's all. Your milage may vary. Some people's ideas of how game reviews should be interpreted is mixed up.

Too**