Metareview - Prince of Persia (PC, PS3, 360)

by Ludwig Kietzmann { Dec 3rd 2008 at 11:00AM }

Devoid of generic rage and frustrating deaths, Prince of Persia marks quite an easy, effortless end to 2008's video game gauntlet -- at least, according to reviewers. Though the platforming has been simplified, most seem to agree that the expansive world and chemistry between the two lead characters make for a worthwhile experience. We're also seeing the word "magical" appear quite often.

IGN UK (94/100) calls Prince of Persia an "incredibly polished, tremendously enjoyable and utterly lovable experience." It supposedly builds on the best elements of previous games to create an "absolutely unforgettable adventure" that's "magical in every sense of the word." Well, probably not the Harry Potter sense of the word.
Game Informer (87.5/100) notes that the simplified platforming is an "elegant and simple way to show off thrilling acrobatics, but it also steals control away from the player." However, it deems the tradeoff worthwhile, as "the more relaxed control input still demands skill and careful timing." Either way, it's "unlike any other game you'll play this year."
1UP (B+) approves of Princess rescuing Prince, pointing out that while "this human safety net may seem counterintuitive in offering a sense of challenge, the entire process functions similarly to most other death-checkpoint systems (you die, you go back to a nearby checkpoint), but with the added benefit of giving the action a more seamless feel."
Gamespot (80/100) thinks the "easygoing joy and visual beauty will charm you into forgiving a sprinkling of flaws." They call it "one of the easiest games you'll play all year," but one boasting "some truly impressive level design."

Tags: Elika, JS-Twitter, Metareview, Prince-of-Persia, Ubisoft, Ubisoft-Montreal

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Mr Khan @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:04AM

That's the problem with modern platformers is that they are all either too easy or too short

It doesn't devalue them as games, especially since platformers are usually swimming in replay value and are, pound-for-pound, more fun than other genres, but it does hurt their chances to standing up to the meatier stuff out there

Cody @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:45PM

Prince of Persia one of the easiest games you'll play all year??

I clearly remember the classic PoPs being known mainly for their difficulty level. At least I thought they were pretty damn hard.

Cody @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:46PM

Sorry about that Mr Khan, I did not mean to reply to you with that comment.

finaldarklord @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:04PM

Doesn't seem idiotic at all to me. You say its the fault of gamers who support this trend and then go on to say that you will support the game yourself.

I don't care what your reasons for supporting it are, you are still still a hypocrite for doing so. Be a man, pull your head out of your ass and quit shifting blame here.

Strategy_Panda (the artist formally known as Titanium_Orchid) @ Dec 3rd 2008 2:53PM

The two platformers I played this season were Pixel Junk Eden and LBP. I found both to be a good length, and fairly satisfying to play (the difficulty of LBP is ratcheted up when you go through with no deaths).

I hope PoP is fairly easy though, because its my Dad's Christmas gift.

Kris @ Dec 3rd 2008 3:00PM

This game is not very short actually.

butaneko @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:12AM

Absolutely will buy!

Just not right now. Anyone else juggling 6 games at once?

Duke @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:59AM

I have far too many games in the library that I have either not touched or only put a little time into. So I have to resist the urge to get this right now too. Heck, I have only played a few hours of Gears 2 and that was only coop.

ZaxCG2 @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:08PM

Keeping myself busy with L4D... as long as I keep having fun I can get past buying new games and wait till they're 40$ or less. :)

Shignami @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:22AM

87.5? Someone tell me that's a typo. What kind of super-analytical device do you have that can rate a game THAT precisely? how is that different than a 9? why do you need the significant digits?

87.5? how do you... I don't even... Dammit Game Informer...

NaeemTHM @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:30AM

I'm actually surprised Game Informer didn't award this Game of the Century. I hear it's quite easy and near impossible to lose. They usually score games like that fairly high.

Meanwhile, any game that requires even a little effort gets damned to hell.

MagiKarp @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:32AM

I think it's because game informer typically has a review then another writer's "second opinion." Averaging the two could result in in an 87.5.

zhine @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:40AM

Game Informer DOES have a second opinion, but the two aren't averaged.

They score the game out of 10, but unlike IGN/Gamespot/Gametrailers/etc., GI uses a quarter-point scale. So games can get an 8, an 8.25, an 8.5, an 8.75, a 9....you get the idea.

Out of 100, that makes it an 87.5.

Shignami @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:46PM

Yes, but 87.5? what game reviewer says, "Hmmm, It's good, but it's not 88 material... Thank god for decimals!"

What is the point of rating games on essentially a 1000 point scale? what makes a 87.5 game better than an 87? If I were to take two games and rate one 2.5 and the other a 3, they would both just be bad games! no one in their right mind could possibly discern five hundredths of a difference in quality!

Biff_McFresh @ Dec 3rd 2008 3:45PM

Perhaps they just wish to use scores in quarter (.25)increments? I'm able to grasp the concept. 8.75 = 87.5

That gives to 3 scores to choose from if you feel the game falls between a 8 or 9. (8.25, 8.5, 8.75)

I'm not seeing the big deal here.

nonpareil @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:24AM

The inability to ratchet up the difficulty really makes this a no-go for me. I'm all for redefining the "Game Over" screen in inventive ways, but it seems like this game can be blasted through with tremendous ease in a short period of time. Other than collecting all the orbs, there's no replayability whatsoever.

NaeemTHM @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:34AM

Hey I'm no game developer, and perhaps Ubisoft wanted something more casual, however I believe they wanted something more about the experience.

I think they removed the game over screen because seeing that reminds us that we're just playing a video game. After seeing all the developer videos and trailers, I truly think Ubisoft wanted something more along the lines of an interactive summer blockbuster.

Farseer (GDI) @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:43AM

Braid didn't have a "Game Over" screen, and I sure wouldn't call Braid easy...

nonpareil @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:53AM

@Farseer (GDI): No one who played Braid called it easy. Everyone who played this called it easy. Just because there's no game over screen doesn't mean the game is easy -- PoP is easy because you have an automated helper/saver who makes jumps/wins fights for you. This is akin to having a little man in Braid who solved the puzzle for you whenever you got stuck.

Jonathan @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:24AM

But all the reviews agree you have to replay levels to collect 100s of orbs, the platforming is automated and there is only 1 way to do so, and the combat is super easy as Elika will make you win with her combos every time.

It seems so effing easy, like it's made for Wii or something, where usually these easy casual games go.

Rent later.

tmacairjordan87 @ Dec 3rd 2008 2:39PM

Yeah it really was the difference between a buy and rent for me. I'm not spending that much money on a super easy game that can be beaten in mere hours with no replayability. I absolutely despise this casual movement, as it's starting to negatively affect games.

However, I wouldn't have a problem with it if they had extra difficulties for regular gamers like they did back in the old days....of 5 years ago.

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Dec 3rd 2008 4:18PM

"I absolutely despise this casual movement, as it's starting to negatively affect games."

And you make it sound like this is something that's recent. If we're using your definition of "casual" then modern games over the past 5-10 years have been influenced by the casual gamer since they are definitely much more easier than their 8/16 bit counterparts. Prince of Persia is only a more exterme version of this.

knighty (GT: ZeraKnight) @ Dec 3rd 2008 4:56PM

8/16 bit games were just frustratingly difficult to make them last longer. It's an antique concept nowadays, making games more completable wasn't a bad thing in the slightest since they're far longer. Making them too easy however is a different thing.

baby sea tuna @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:36AM

Loved Sands of Time, but gave up on the franchise after the turd that was Warrior Within. It didn't help that the Two Thrones came out at the same time as the 360 and wasn't ever made BC. Incidentally, what's with the PoP team and release dates? They've managed to release every single one of them at the least opportune times (it was only because I saw someone else playing Sands, and was subsequently blown away by it, that I even bothered to pick it up.)

Where was I going with this? Oh, right, gorgeous, but ultimately a rental.

Deeznuts420 @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:58AM

i liked warrior within (hated the back track though) but i liked the chase scenes and the "OH thats how u get up/over/down there" moments also when u realized who was the dude "spying" on you.

Roto13 @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:43AM

So you just can't really die at all? Ugh. See, gamers, this is what you get when you keep acting like games should be movies instead of games. I hate you.

Other than that, this is pretty much exactly what I was expecting.

*bumps up a notch on Christmas list*

Duke @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:02PM

You hate us all because they said the game doesn't allow death, but then you say it goes up a notch on your Christmas list....

Seems you should hate yourself then.

BTW - Prey did that kind of no death game play as well and it wasn't movie like at all to me.

Roto13 @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:05PM

I hate you people for making a good game worse than it has to be. I'm not going to let one stupid flaw prevent me from enjoying it.

But gamers are still giant pussies.

Duke @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:49PM

Oh yeah, this is the fault of the rest of us. Makes sense. You are a great man and we should all be ashamed as we sit in your shadow.

Amazing that you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement that you wont let this flaw stop you from buying it. You hence encourage the makers do make such flaws that you curse.

Roto13 @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:57PM

Maybe if you try really, really hard, you can stop being an idiot.

This game does more right than wrong. No game is perfect. If I refused to buy games that did anything wrong, I'd have to quit being a gamer. So do you encourage the negative aspects of every game you play? If you've played a Shadow of the Colossus, does that mean you're encouraging shitty frame rates?

The fact that more and more games are afraid to have anything that resembles a challenge is entirely the fault of gamers who value graphics and story over gameplay. The people who complain that Final Fantasy XII doesn't have enough cutscenes or bishies. I'm not going to let those people get in the way of me enjoying what's good about a game.

finaldarklord @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:06PM

Roto13 @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:07PM

I am supporting the good things about the game, because they outweigh the bad things, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER GAME EVER MADE.

Duke @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:15PM

"Doesn't seem idiotic at all to me. You say its the fault of gamers who support this trend and then go on to say that you will support the game yourself."

Thank you!

Roto, you are just a very angry man. You call me an idiot when you don't even listen to what is being said to you.

Roto13 @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:17PM

I'm listening, but it's stupid and unreasonable to expect me to never play a game with a flaw ever again.

nomadic0ne @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:32PM

Lol, wow.
The lack of dry humor and sarcasm is amazing!
Roto was including himself in the gamer reference and wasn't even knocking the game!
Relax people!
Sheesh!
:-)

Duke @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:36PM

nomadic0ne, if you read his follow-up comments, you would see that was not the case.

nomadic0ne @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:49PM

Yeah, I read them.
And they weren't even that inflammatory.
So he thinks (serious or not) that gamers that are soft if they don't want to have it obvious that they failed a part of a game.
Personally, I play games for the experience of the game.
Some of that experience is in a challenge, so I was cautious when I heard of the so called "no dying".
But then I realized that it is just a seamless new way to do a type of checkpoint system.
So I'm reserving my judgement till I play it.
All in all, as Roto said, the good outweighs the bad substantially.
I agree.
As for the rest of the comments?
Meh.
I'm self confident enough that I won't get my panties in a bunch.
:-)

Lord Negatron @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:58PM

Ohhh Roto13
*50's sitcom smile/sympathy*

Your holo deck down again? Pfft these "games" and they're flaws. Pathetic. Last one to Nebulon 5 is a rotten egg! !!

*BAMF!*

Duke @ Dec 3rd 2008 3:11PM

So that many people don't see the hypocrisy? Amazing!

LlamaFarmer @ Dec 3rd 2008 3:38PM

@roto - does your mommy charge you rent to live in her basement, or do you live there for free?

Roto13 @ Dec 3rd 2008 3:41PM

LlamaFarmer: That doesn't even make any sense.

finaldarklord @ Dec 3rd 2008 4:46PM

I'm not saying don't support a game despite flaws. I'm saying that if you are going to do so, DON'T blame everyone else for those flaws being so wide spread.

Roto13 @ Dec 3rd 2008 4:54PM

Shit like this happens because gamers bitch and moan about games that they have any trouble finishing. They think Devil May Cry 3 should have been an opening and intro cinematic, and if they die in between those two cinematic, they throw the controller across the room in a huff and proceed to GameFAQs for some intense whining.

It does NOT happen because I support games despite the fact that they have flaws.

WiredKnight @ Dec 3rd 2008 5:13PM

I sincerely doubt the reason they made this game "easy" in response to a bunch of whiny players.

For the most part, the ongoing trend of making games more accessible is precisely that, an attempt to reach a wider audience. Many non-gamers simply assume that games are difficult and have trouble getting into them. But making games more forgiving helps keep things fun for them. Unfortunately, this tends to let down gamers who are looking for a real challenge. With a game as well made as this though, it's easily overlooked. As you said, you have to take the good with the bad.

Personally, I hate it when games are unnecessarily difficult. I don't complain about it, because I like a challenge as much as anybody else, and finishing difficult games usually yields a greater sense of accomplishment. But it's nice to see developers trying something different. What's wrong with a game that's easy, as long as it's still fun?

Roto13 @ Dec 3rd 2008 5:21PM

The bad thing about a game that's easy but fun is that it probably could have actually been CHALLENGING and fun.

I already said the good outweighs the bad with PoP and I'm planning on getting it. But if they had wanted to make it more accessible, they should have done what Super Mario Galaxy did. That game was easy enough to "finish", but it was never impossible to die and there were some pretty tough challenges (and rewards for completing those challenges) for those of us who wanted to attempt them.

JoeTheBlow @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:03PM

In this credit crunchy wallet raping time of year the last thing i want is a game i can blaze through in one night.
NO SALE!

Reader @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:41PM

Maybe you should turn off your internet and sell your computer, I'd love to stop reading this same comment on every blog article from joystiq to autoblog.

phobic99 @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:17PM

And another game that I feel isn't worth the $60. In a few months it'll be a great time to get a lot of good games substantially cheaper *glares at Mirror's Edge*

why not the LS2LS7? @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:20PM

I just finished Mirror's Edge and Uncharted.

Playing these two emphasized how great a game Uncharted is. It plays so much better, is far less frustrating and has a better story and cutscenes.

But I read the 1UP reviews for this PoP and for Uncharted, and they get almost the same score. But despite PoP having lots of negatives ("too easy", mediocre and sparse combat, feels like too many quick-time events), PoP scores really well. In fact, PoP's metacritic is higher than Uncharted's.

Is this just more score inflation or is there another answer?

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm ready for a game with both adaptable difficulty (absolutely no override) and the inability to fail.