| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (117)

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 2:31PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dont forget that a review intends to guide your consumer decision. 100 to me means "buy without a second thought, its worth the money"; 95 means "its worth it, but you might also enjoy something else"; 80 means "if you are into this sort of game (or theme) then you will enjoy it, but otherwise, it may not be worth it, also ok to get if you have nothing to play"; 70 means "rent, if interested, or wait for bargain bin"; 60 and below is trash in various degrees of freshness. Below 40 means the game is broken in significant ways.

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 2:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Completable in 12-15 hours. No incentive to replay. No online features. Sounds like a weekend rental. As for the scores, I think it's pretty clear the game is around a 9/10. I've read most of those reviews and they certainly don't make it out to be a 10/10 game.

The flaws it has are actually quite significant. 9/10 says there's some good room for improvement. 10/10 says there's next to nothing wrong with it. Repetetive, clumsy, tedious and short lived doesn't sound next to nothing in me eyes. I'd say the only reason they give it 10's is either due to a silly review system, or pleasing the hyped up masses they've created. Kinda like when PSM2 gave Driv3r a 90%...

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 3:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Most overhyped game of the year, and with Halo 3 released that is saying a lot.

If people would look at gameplay vids instead of Jade Raymond they may have a bit more sense as to what bandwagon to jump on.

Funniest thing all year is some ppl thinking this was ever a GOTY contender.

If only Jade Raymond just did PR and didn't have a hand in the development this may have turned out better.

Enjoy the sequel as you have no choice in the matter. Absolutely ironic that the POP Sands of Time ppl are working on this.

POP 3.5, lick it up.

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 3:40PM DrXym said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This game is getting flayed alive by the mainstream sites now that the review embargo has lifted. It makes you wonder a) why Ubisoft embargoed reviews until after the game released b) why some only positive reviews managed to appear before the embargo c) why these positive reviews are so at odds with later reviews. Something stinks and the stench is coming from Ubisoft. Don't believe the gushing reviews until you've had the chance to read the later ones. You might regret it, especially with some many genuinely good games going around at the moment.

Posted: Nov 20th 2007 6:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
100/100 = other games can be as good as this, but never better. I highly doubt Games Radar believes no other game is better than Assassin's Creed.

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 3:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Where are the negative reviews coming from? The only review I've come across so far that isn't a 9 or higher is 1up, and a 7 isn't that low for them. Not saying your wrong, just interested in what the really bad reviews you speak of have to say.

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 4:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've only played up to the end of the tutorial and am in the middle of the 'first' mission (in the caves - you'll understand)...

Possible spoilers: WARNING

AWESOME.. I agree upper 90's... at least... 96 so far.. If you didnt' know you'd think it was real people walking around.. The sensing others intentionss, different methods, blades, hiding in cover etc... blending in...

I'm not going to say too much, but you'll like it. Its just THAT different (oh and Mass Effect is INCREDIBLE)... AHHH.. no time left...

Must go finish Bioshock (my GOTY - AC may take it though), then AC then Mass Effect...

Works almost over...lol...

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 5:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The reviews mention this exact same thing... It gets repetitive according to them though.

IGN: If you play Assassin's Creed for an hour, you will probably think it's a fantastic game. But as Assassin's progresses, its dual storylines and repetitive quests begin to grow tiresome.

Eurogamer:It's a fitting end to a game that starts off brightly, wriggling elusively as you try and grasp what's going on, delighting in the mechanics and beautiful visuals, before sinking into a pattern that, while fairly gratifying, never evolves and ultimately becomes a bit boring, and quite amazingly repetitive.

Planet Xbox 360: After the first level I thought I had a winner on my hands for sure but as I played more I got more bored and the game became more repetitive. Even though it takes a lot of chances with innovative features and an entirely new fighting system it does not follow through where it matters.

Planet Xbox 360's review sounds really similar to what you're saying.






Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 4:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm gonna have to say, I called this a while back.

"Oct 25th 2007 3:45PM Pretty sure this game is gonna suck.. Every preview i've read so far is far from enthusiastic about it. With a release date that close..obviously not much is gonna change. I'm predicting an average score of high 7's or low 8's." And then someone commented, and I commented back on what seems to be a repetitive game. If you look at all the lower rated scores on metacritic right now, they all point out repetitive gameplay. And the current average score is 84... I win.

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 10:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
84 is a sucky game?

It sounds to me like you will either like or dislike this game, much like a Metal Gear Solid. It's a genre that isn't for everyone, which is exactly why it's a risk.
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 11:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not really a genre issue. I like games like Assassins Creed. Or, at least, the idea of it. If a game is repetitive, thats not a matter of taste, thats a universally disliked trait. The story, on the hand, is something I might be interested in as I'm a fan of good interesting stories.
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 5:43PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ok, since everyone seems to be listing this, i may as well put in my $0.02

I say 90%+ stands for "Especially Awesome, above and beyond," 80-90 as "Great, but not going above and beyond," 70-80 as "Good not Great" 60-70 as "Fair, rent-worthy, but not a recommended buy" 50-60 as "Poor, but playable" and 49%- as "unplayable to "X" degree" (sliding on down the scale)

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 10:01PM Autopsy15 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't care what any of the reviewers say. It's just their opinion. It's not a nail in the coffin for Assassin's Creed. I'm still buying it tomorrow.

Posted: Nov 13th 2007 10:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think this is one of the big issues with reviews these days. A perfect score should be the 'standard' of current gaming. So if say a game is given a 10/10 that is what would basically be as good as it gets for now and that has nothing to do with perfect. Absolutely no gave ever will be perfect, everyone has their differences. So basically giving it a perfect score should represent that it sets todays standards and afterwards new games should basically be judged against it. At least in my book, but that's not how most see it.

What I don't understand is how FPS games continue to get such greats scores. Sure there are some great ones, Call of Duty 4 and BioShock come to mind. Neither really do anything new though, they are just really good, updated shooters. One thing that all of these reviews seem to ignore is the fact that Ubisoft is in fact trying to advance games with this game and not recognizing that is pretty lame. Even if the game isn't as great as it could be, at least they are trying to advance and not just make 'another FPS'. If you can't give them credit for that then I don't know what to say. Certainly Halo 3 doesn't do that, even if you think it's the best game ever made. It looks like there will be a few games this year that push the boundaries, hopefully people will embrace it and it will entice studios to take a few more risks.

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 7:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Flop of the year.

I can tell who preordered this based on your comments. You can justify your purchase all you want, but you can't really justify the game.

All gameplay videos for it look way off, it looks like an unfinished game.

Tends to happen with Jade Raymond in control.

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 10:12AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm still looking forward to this game but I always like to see variation and replayability in a game so I'm quietly concerned.

As for the Games Radar score, the review reads like they've been "persuaded by external influences".

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 9:52PM Colossalhat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess for anyone who's in the least bit concerned about the low scores, you should check out Penny Arcade's post about it today.

Basically, Gabe says the low scores are due to the reviewers doing speed runs through the game and needing to meet deadlines.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW