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

Reader Comments (145)

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I really want this game but lack of funds + lack of time - FAIL
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:08PM jefwif said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
EQUALS WHAT?!?! you cant just leave me hanging like that!!
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
w00ps, meant to press equals *sigh*
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:32PM RyanS said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Equals what?

Man, he subtracted the Fail!! Its ALL WIN!!
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:39PM zenaxe said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
This reminds me. I still have to finish AC1. :)

MAN that game is pretty but repetitive. I've played through Gears of War like three times since I've owned it.

I'm seriously wondering if AC2 will not be more of the same. All the reviewers raved about 1, too, IIRC.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 1:00PM Zoot Suit Jedi Grammar Hammer En said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Zenaxe, I for one find your tale of woe entirely captivating. Might I suggest this become a miniseries. Perhaps next week you DO complete AC1, and wrestle with the decision to play the sequel some more. Maybe you play through Gears a fourth time. It's plot turns like this that will keep the audience coming back for more.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 2:13PM SamE said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I can relate to lack of fund first Batman, second Katamari , then Unharted 2, with MW2, now this come out. Damn you developers, stop producing publishing good games so close to one one another!!!!
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 2:21PM thisredengine Tweet me said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Zoot Suit Jedi: You're what's wrong with the Jedi these days. Always putting down the little man. Bet you a Jedi can't even finish Gears of War once, let alone like three times since owning it.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2009 8:51AM p dot t said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I have played the first one and it was really smashing, A.C. 2 was quite a new round of story focusing on a different character. Have you guys heard of the secret glyph challenge for this game?
It said that you have to collect 20 glyph code and once completed, a secret video will be revealed! I searched and it was quite a spoiler but I was too excited not to watch it.
http://tiny.cc/glyphguide
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2009 11:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I, for one, think Zoot Suit was being entirely candid!
You are a fiend to doubt his sincerity!
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2009 10:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you have both consoles, get the 360 version. I had the PS3 copy and the textures were simplified and there was a lot of clipping, tearing and frame rate issues. Also, the 360 controller is much easier to use in free run.
Reply

Posted: Nov 22nd 2009 5:49PM moogleboi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its an amazing game but the screen-tearing issues are really distracting, there's also accompanying dips in the framerate. So far its been at its worst when I've had NPCs on me in Florence and been jumping rooftops to get away from them. The image gets a bit laggy.

It seems very progressive too - the longer you spend in an environment the worse the tearing gets. There are a few people denying it, but I think we're looking at either extreme cases of fanboyism, those who have a whack perception of 'bad screen-tearing' or really don't know what screen-tearing is - because for most people its pretty annoying.

I wouldn't be suprised if Ubisoft employees have been briefed to ignore complaints. Topics are being locked on the forums, using the support center gets you an automated response. The PS3 bug thread consists mostly of screen-tear complaints, and is almost double the size of the 360 bug thread.

The fact that this wasn't fixed before release and that Ubisoft have a shameful history when it comes to shoddy PS3 ports pretty much means that this won't be fixed, but rather they'll be moving their resources onto the next shoddy PS3 port (and if this is not a port, how did it end up worse than the 360 version I wonder?).

Not that this wasn't obvious from the first PS3 previews, but I think Ubisoft made sure reviewers recieved the 360 version. Not to mention all the early reviewers probably made a deal with Ubisoft anyway for a 'very good' review (see wikipedia, at least one publisher said Ubisoft wanted to do a deal with them). All this makes Ubisoft's image look very dirty indeed.
Reply

Posted: Dec 2nd 2009 1:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Testing my first comment, sorry :)
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:02PM MGTrey said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
To all those who have played this game, what say you: buy or rent?
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'd say its a buy. An improvement in almost every aspect over the original. Im glad the combat was unchanged as AC1 had some of the most fun and fluid combat imo with some of the best animations out there. This review pretty much nails it on the head. Well written. (Btw, i fell into category 2, loved AC1 despite its faults.)
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 1:17PM iamnotafish said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
It depends if you're a completionist or not. I'm about 5 hours in, and I'm hooked. The gameplay is awesome, and the story has enough intricacies to keep you coming back. If you just want the story, book off a weekend, rent it and go that way. If you want to enjoy the whole experience, then buy it. You can always trade it in if you finish it quickly.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 1:30PM Ghen said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I say buy. They got so much mud in their face from reviewers over the first game's repetition (and even tried to fix it on the PC) that there was no possible way this one would be screwed up even in the minutiae.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 2:17PM The angry pro consumer gaming ga said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
It's a definite buy, on par with MW2 and Batman:AA but not up to Uncharted 2. Three awesome games, but there can be only one and this year belongs to Uncharted 2 since there really isn't anything spectacular coming out the rest of the year,
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 3:17PM Franklin Gothic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I loved the climbing in the first game but it wore out its welcome half way through (because the evasion system was too simplistic). Does the sequel have a little more depth in this regard? I mean, is there more meaning to climbing up the side of everything than... just doing it because you can?

thanks
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 10:01PM yamugushi said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@the guy wanting to know about the evasion system

It's much better, almost like GTAIVs except no helis (so it's easier). You have notoriety from doing "stunts" i.e. the double kill in the e3 trailer, if you have a ton of notoriety guards pretty much know you on sight, if you play it quiet you can run around a lot. When you do get caught you have to get outside of a radius like in GTAIV, then stay hidden for awhile.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 11:47PM The Wicker Man said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
From one Trey to another...BUY.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:06PM SaMav said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Joystiq should give an actual score.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:08PM MrXile said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Why? So they can be like the rest and people pick and pick at the scores.

An unscored review is based on its merits. I would rather have it like this in all honesty.

That way, you get the in's and out's of the game without being worried that the game only got 82% or 7/10 etc.

This way, if I like the sound of the game, I get it... and I am not put off by a subpar score (which varies from site to site anyway!)
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:09PM latin trident said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
that would destroy the point of writing an article.See my example below.

Assassin's Creed 2 Review:

blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah

8/10
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Please no. We fight enough over the non-scored versions :\
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:13PM Granger said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So instead of reading an 860 word review that attempts to touch on every facet of the game's design, you can sum everything up with a two digit numeral at the end and bypass all that reading?

You're one of those little bastards who always got a full score of tokens at Chuck E Cheese come report card day aren't you?
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:13PM MGTrey said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
They did give an actual score, but it's hidden to everyone who lack reading comprehension.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:13PM NaeemTHM said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
No, because then simple minded people get hung up on things like: "ONLY AN 8!? WHY DEY EVEN BOTHER MAKING DAH GAME?!"

It's MUCH better this way. When you read reviews like this you can make up you're own mind as to whether it's worth your money.

As for me, this review sounds glowing so I'm all over Assassin's Creed II!
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Review scores are bullshit. The scale is totally fucked up. The only scores that are used or matter are:
9-10 =great
7 to 8 =mediocre
0 to 7 = crap

If a reviewer tries to use the whole spectrum, they will be crucified by every fanboy in existence. It also doesn't help that the game industry in general pulls strings in order to get a better metacritic score.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:22PM Puertoricarious said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
bad idea. it blows my mind how many times i've seen people write "a great game with some flaws in it" and give it a 10/10, and on the flip side write "absolutely perfect" and give a 9/10.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:28PM Samutz said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Boy, I wish I could have passed my literature/reading classes by giving a review score instead of writing a review.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:43PM Vcize said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Ya know, I think review scores get a bit of a bad rap.

Sure, it's true that a lot of people just skip straight to the score and skip over the meat of the review, but if I'm not one of those people, why should I care? They're going to skip over that stuff anyways without a score, and just read the last sentence or skip the review entirely.

Even as someone that reads the entire review, a score helps. So from reading this, Joystiq thinks AC2 is a really good game. Which is exactly the same thing you'll get out of reading the UC2 review, or the Batman:AA review. So which one is better? If I have to pick one to play this holiday season, which is it (btw, I picked UC2). If you asked Joystiq which was the best of the three they'd certainly have an opinion on it, probably a fairly passionate one. I'm sure they think all three are great, and you can't go wrong either way, but one is clearly the best in their minds, and one clearly the worst of the three. With a score we would know which was which, and still get the meat of the review to read also.

If I were to review Halo 3 there's not really anything particularly bad I'd say about. Technically, it's perfect. It's also fun to play. But if I were to rate it, I wouldn't put it anywhere NEAR as high as Gears, Uncharted, Mass Effect, or countless other games this gen. But from reading the review, you wouldn't really "get" that because it doesn't have any major flaws. It's an 8. And with just words, it's hard to differentiate an 8 from a 9.5, because in both cases you're going to have mostly good things to say.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 1:43PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"Which is exactly the same thing you'll get out of reading the UC2 review, or the Batman:AA review. So which one is better?"

Why do gamers need to have scores to decide that? The entire point of a review is to give gamers enough information to decide which game interests them the most. By reading the review, gamers are able to figure out whether or not this is the game for them by reading what the author feels is the game's strengths and witnesses, and after reading a couple other reviews, they should be able to determine whether or not a game is worth the buy.

Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 2:22PM Digiboi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A score is good for metacritic - getting on metacritic gets you review copies of games from publishers. That's why most reviewers find a way to score.

For some of us, metacritic is essential when our backlog drops and we want to go back and look for gems we missed. When a game is at or near publish, I want the full review. When I'm looking at something long ago that has lost buzz, I want metacritic. Oh, and for kicks its fun to see where GTA IV lands.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 2:56PM SaMav said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Vcize, I agree..
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 3:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Please tell me what the difference is between a game that is a 9 and a game that is a 9.5, 8.5 and 9, etc...

Review scores are bullshit. There is always a different person reviewing games, and all have varying tastes, and preferences. The point of review scores has been to compare games, but how could you do that if it is so inconsistent? Review scores have also been inflated. Look at awesome games 10 years ago scored an 8.5. Now, all games are scoring 9s and 10s.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 3:44PM JeezWhiz87 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love the way Joystiq does their reviews, but sometimes I don't have time to read the whole thing *cough*when I'm procrastinating at work*cough*. Something short and sweet would be helpful until I get a chance to really sit down and read the review. Otherwise, no complaints, I dig your style Joystiq.

And yeah, I know I should probably be working, and not reading Joystiq, but too bad.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 4:13PM Ashitaka said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"By reading the review, gamers are able to figure out whether or not this is the game for them by reading what the author feels is the game's strengths and witnesses"

Sorry but... Objection!
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:07PM MrXile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Picking this up on Friday, all the skepticism over the linear mission styles from AC1 are gone after reading this.

I am looking forward to new eyes on this game now!
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:08PM Courtney said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I was in the camp that thoroughly enjoyed the first one also, and it makes me very happy to see the whole concept driven forward like this.

Though maybe I was in the minority of liking the Desmond interludes. They gave me a natural stopping point a lot of nights and kind of left me with the feeling that it was okay to give up the hunt and head to bed.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 4:26PM ic wiener said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
lol, you actually sleep? what do you think red bulls are for? :D
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2009 6:12PM Saihna said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Giving you wings? :D
Reply

Posted: Nov 28th 2009 7:26AM DerickDBrown said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with this. My only problem is that I was searching for stuff to do in those sections. I always thought there was going to be some great thing revealed about the modern storyline if I could just figure out that room.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:09PM PSN ID JBerg said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm waiting by the door for UPS to delivery this game to me, and this review makes me anticipate that knock even more.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 1:01PM thisredengine Tweet me said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
What would you do if the delivery-person decides to not ring your doorbell and just leaves the notice? It's happened to me twice. Felt pretty good on those days.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:10PM Confucius89 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I played the 1st game and after about 5 hrs I found myself insanely board and uninspired; I can't help but think that that this sequel will deliver the same experience, I could be wrong though.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:21PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, some things are a labor of love. The first game was a labor of effort...to play. I'm right with you. However, the reason I got it in the first place was because the concept sounded so frickin' awesome, I couldn't imagine they could screw it up that badly. Hopefully this one really is what the first one should have been.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:10PM BIGGEN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i was hoping to hear something like this about ACII. i couldn't finish the first one because it was so repetitive. it would be ok to run through quickly, but being a cheevo whore, finding every high point and all that shit turned me off pretty quick. oh well, i guess i'll try the second one now.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:10PM Uncle Jesse said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I can't believe how split people were on the first one. I knew people that absolutely hated it and others that loved everything about it. I really liked the first one and had planned on getting this for Christmas anyways, but it's nice to hear that they've made this superior in many ways than the first. This and L4D2 sound like great sequels after using the originals as a starting point. Cool beans.
Reply

Posted: Nov 17th 2009 12:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
The people who, "hated it" didn't actually play it. As with most games a few people are vocal about being negative and everyone expresses those same negative opinions (even those that never played it). Sure the game was a bit repetitive but who in their right mind would just play through nonstop with a game like that? I took my time over several weeks to beat it and loved it.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Portabliss: Time Ducks (iOS)

Posted on Feb 7th 2012 9:00PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW