# Assassin's Creed - Dissapointment?



## Commonmind (Nov 13, 2007)

So I made my way to the local Gamestop today to pick up my retail copy of Mario Galaxy (which, might I add, is an utterly fantastic platformer and really brings the series back around). I happen to be close friends with the manager and after I'd checked out we chatted about a few big titles coming in the next few weeks. He'd attended a vendor conference here and Orlando and was able to play a few minutes of Mass Effect and AC, both games he was looking forward to.

After talking about the latter for the better part of thirty minutes or so, he mentioned a few guys had come in earlier in the day and canceled their pre-orders, putting their money toward Mass Effect, Crysis or other titles instead. He said they all mentioned poor review scores and most, if not all of them, attributed their not buying the game to the disappointing reception its had in the press.

IGN and 1up both scored the game below an 8.0, 1up giving it an abysmally flat 7. 1up's review was done by Michael Donahue, a reviewer that I've grown to respect over time. He was very candid in pointing out the faults of the game and went so far as focusing the entirety of his review around the game's shortcomings.

Normally I tend to read reviews after I've played the game for some time, since I don't want to go into the game with any kind of expectations. I simply couldn't help myself this time, however, and I'm kicking myself for it. I've played many games that feel short of the above-average score rating that I've absolutely loved, but quite a few of the disappointments these reviewers are shedding light on are some of the aspects of the game I was most looking forward to.

I'm still picking up my copy tomorrow and I hope I have a different experience. Here's to going against the grain *cheers*


----------



## Lenny (Nov 13, 2007)

I just laugh at reviews, personally. Is there some kind of unwritten rule that states that the opinion of the reviewer is going to be exactly the same as my own? Nah. I'm getting it Friday (if the post comes...), and I'm going to love it. 

Oh, and Gamespot gave it a 9.0 - Assassin's Creed for PlayStation 3 Review - PlayStation 3 Assassin's Creed Review

To say Gamespot have been slagged off for months because of a heavy bias towards the 360, that's quite an amazing score.


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 13, 2007)

I'm not sure they're being biased. There is a definite drought in PS3 software, all the more troubling since some of their more anticipated titles - Ratchet and Clank, Lair and Heavenly Sword - didn't live up to expectations. Lots of sites are accused of being biased toward one platform or another, but it's usually pretty laughable considering how one site will be called biased toward Sony one month, and biased toward Microsoft another. It seems many gamers would rather not see the truth, that their beloved system (whichever one it may be) is having a software dry-spell. Gamespot was pegged as being Wii haters after their somewhat lackluster Twilight Princess review, but they've been some of the biggest Wii proponents out there.

I have the same enthusiasm as you Lenny, I'm still grabbing my copy, and I'm sure it's going to please - I'm just kicking myself for reading the review because there were certain aspects of the game I was looking forward to that were said to be somewhat disappointing.


----------



## Green (Nov 14, 2007)

I'll definitely play it. I just wish all these great games weren't coming out so close. I have other stuff to do, damn it!

I do read reviews quite often before I play a game, but out of interest to the hobby/medium/whatever you want to call it. I enjoy reading about games, but I rarely care what rating the reviewers actually give.

I think games reviewers play too many games for their reviews to have any relevance to me personally. I play maybe four or five games a year max, and those are always ones I've been looking forward to for a long time. And still, the reviewers give these games ratings much higher than I would give them myself (usually by about 10%). I think because there is so much repetitive garbage on the market, reviewers pick up on the quite small amount of innovation within a new game and they build it up so that it becomes the defining focus of the game, as though it is the second coming or something.

When I play these games, I find myself thinking, "Yeah, that new game mechanic is fun.... but god, developers still can't create intelligent squad members" (for example, in Crysis, one of my squad members got stuck in a door, and since you can't shoot or hit a friend in that game, I had to grenade him to get him to move out of my way).

It also seems these days that 70% has become the benchmark for an "average" or even "subpar" game. That does my head in. I bet more games get more than 80 than get less than 20, or even less than 40.


----------



## Cayal (Nov 14, 2007)

Commonmind said:


> I'm not sure they're being biased. There is a definite drought in PS3 software, all the more troubling since some of their more anticipated titles - *Ratchet and Clank*, Lair and Heavenly Sword - didn't live up to expectations.



Ratchet and Clank has been getting amazing reviews across the board. Not sure where you get it has been a disappointment from.

Ratchet and Clank Reviews (PS3)

So has Heavenly Sword for the matter

Heavenly Sword Reviews (PS3)

And of course they are being bias, how much and is it deliberate are the real questions. No body can be 100% completely free of bias.


----------



## Lucien21 (Nov 14, 2007)

Eurogamer gave it a disappointing 7/10.

Gamespot seems to complete ignore the faults in the game that the other reviewers are bringing up. Maybe Jade winked at them.

The consensus seems to be Fantastic graphics and freedom of movement let down by  repetitive gameplay issues. The combat and AI is getting some stick.

I'll still buy it on Friday and make up my own mind, but it is disappointing it may not be the game I was hoping for.


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 14, 2007)

Jaire said:


> Ratchet and Clank has been getting amazing reviews across the board. Not sure where you get it has been a disappointment from.
> 
> Ratchet and Clank Reviews (PS3)
> 
> ...



I was speaking of sales expectations, not overall review scores. Ratchet and Clank and Heavenly Sword are two of my favorite PS3 titles. 

And there's a difference between bias and subjectivity. Being subjective is forgiven, being biased is not. I think you were referring to the former.


----------



## Lenny (Nov 16, 2007)

In answer to the title - *Assassin's Creed - Dissapointment? *

Not a chance in 'ell, mate!

I've been playing it for about seven hours now, I've completed two assasinations, done a shed load of side missions, and killed several hundred guards. Scores of buildings have muddy footprints up them, I've scared off a dozen eagles, and q large number of haystacks have been violated.

And so far, I'm loving it. The graphics are fantastic, the gameplay is brilliant (despite the strange control system - you do get used to it after a while... and it makes sense), and the story is fantastic (whilst some may think that the, ah, _extra_ element to it is awful, I'm particularly enjoying it).

Sadly, though, I need some food, so I'm going to have to pause it for ten minutes.


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 17, 2007)

I'm on the second to last assassination at the moment, with several of the optional collection and assassination quests finished and I do have to say, while not a disappointment in any way shape or form, I do agree with some of the assessments made about the game's repetitiveness. Near the end you will feel as if you're doing the same five or six menial tasks in order to collect a mark on the target. There are no times where the methods change or where you employ a new tactic for assassination. On top of that, some of the skills that are more enjoyable to use during these assassinations don't come along until you get into the final hours. 

While I may not consider the game a total wash, I definitely have to agree with some of the reviewers' comments. I feel like there was so much more the game could've done but was lost in the breadth and scope of the level design and character's interaction with that environment - which I have no complaints about.


----------



## Lucien21 (Nov 18, 2007)

3 down 6 to go.

It is a very enjoyable game, but certainly far from perfect.

The exploration, free running aspects within the cities is superb. I'm having so much fun just clambering about and jumping from roof to roof. Running away from guards etc

The Graphics are amazing although there are a few issues with clipping and even freezing in the PS3 version.

The control system takes some getting used to, but once you get the counter attack the guard fights become piss easy.

Unfortunatly the game is very repetitive, visit city, climb viewpoints to fill in map, visit assassin office, clear map of objectives which are always listen, pickpocket or beat up (the same guy I think) I can see this starting to grate by the time I get to the last mission. It screams out for more variety.

The in between missions are also really naff (apart from Kirstin Bell).

Overall so far it would probably be an 8/10


----------



## Hiro Protagonist (Nov 19, 2007)

I haven't played it myself, but I hear that it is really good.


----------



## Wayward Ho! (Nov 19, 2007)

I think 8 out of 10 is about right. Assassin's Creed is a stunning game in most respects, but I think it lacks that little something which would make it truly remarkable. What that is I'm not quite sure - a little more interaction with the denizens of the Holy Land? That's what I would have liked.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Nov 20, 2007)

I played it the other day (I rented the game rather than buying it) and have to say I enjoyed it.
I possibly didn't have it long enough to get overly irritated by the repetitive nature of some of the tasks (and don't most games suffer from this to some degree) but I never get tired of leaping from viewpoints or the thrill from a perfectly executed counter attack on some hapless guard.
I also think the graphics are stunning. Some of the best I've seen so far in a game. People seem to forget that 70-80% is still bloody good! 

EDIT: And on the subject of Mass Effect - buying that one. Looks blooming ace


----------



## Lenny (Nov 21, 2007)

Finished it tonight.

And I really loved it. Whilst I can see why some people might say it's a bit repetitive, I quite enjoyed searching for the information before going in for the kill. The final couple of memory blocks were brilliant, particularly the trip in Arsuf, and the final big fight.

I also liked the extra element to the whole game, though I have to say it _did_ end rather abruptly. However, at least we can say with confidence that there will be a sequel.

Talking about the end - for those of you that have finished, and would like to know what everything said and meant at the end, have a lookee at this article. It gives quite a bit of information about things as a whole, and some insight as to what the sequel may be about (personally, I'm hoping for a ninja!  - you've got to admit, it would make for a very good game, particularly with the control scheme):

CVG Blog: Assassin's Creed Ending Explained! - ComputerAndVideoGames.com


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Nov 21, 2007)

Well I haven't read it ('cos I aint finished!) but I re-iterate that I enjoyed the concept, liked the clash between "real world" and "historical one" and, graphically, it blew me away.

Definitely a strong 7/10 rather than some of the reviews posted.

Incidentally, I played the 360 version so can't comment on the PS3 one


----------



## Lenny (Nov 21, 2007)

Exactly the same game, but what I can tell, from speaking with friends who have it on the 360, the PS3 version is more badly made. Whilst both have issues, the PS3 version seems to freeze a lot more, and has more framerate problems.

It froze on me four or five times (luckily just after saving), and when I got to the final two memory blocks, the framerate really dropped.

It seems to be a theme with EA and Ubisoft games - freezing issues, and framerate issues. Strange that the other developers can avoid the problem altogether.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Nov 21, 2007)

Not a programmer so can't really make an informed comment other than - Ubisoft Creations = Newcastle-based therefore excellent and above reproach


----------



## Lucien21 (Nov 24, 2007)

Finally finished it.

It is a nearly game. Nearly game of the year, nearly superb. Instead it will have to settle for Very Good, but not without problems.

The PS3 version certainly freezes too often for my liking.

There are part of the game that are sublime. The freedom within the cities to scale the buildings and free-run across the rooftops never gets dull, the chase sequences are tense and a lot of fun. The crowd mechanics and general animation is excellent.

However the combat can be a bit hit or miss. At the start it seems to easy with the one at at time attacks and the counter being overly powerful. However from Memory block 6 the combat becomes annoying hard at times surrounded by 20 guards.

The biggest flaw in the game though is the lack of variety in the side missions. Although fun at first it starts to grate when you are doing your 10th round of evesdrop, intimidate and pickpocket missions or you will want to scream when you save your umpteempt citizean who gives you the same speech again and again.

A flawed masterpiece.

8/10


----------



## Lenny (Nov 24, 2007)

About the freezing, and crashes, and what not, Ubisoft know about them, and are releasing a patch very soon.


----------



## Green (Nov 25, 2007)

Ah, console games. The good thing about consoles is that the games run perfectly straight out of the box. Right?

It seems that as consoles become better/more advanced, they are becoming more like PCs.


----------



## Cayal (Nov 25, 2007)

Crashing and freezing isn't unusual for consoles.


----------



## Green (Nov 25, 2007)

That's my point.


----------



## Cayal (Nov 25, 2007)

What did you mean by the PC comment then?


----------



## Lenny (Nov 25, 2007)

PCs crash and freeze all the time. In that sense, consoles are becoming more like PCs.

But I disagree.

*Assassin's Creed *is the only game I've got that has frozen and crashed on my PS3. Every other games, whether it be PS3, PS1 or PS1, has played beautifully, and without a single hitch. Granted, I've got maybe 15 games that I might play, 9 of which I'd play regularly, but not one has had problems.

Assassin's Creed did. And I think it can be put down to sloppy programming. Ubisoft have got a name for themselves as not programming as well for the PS3 as the 360, whether they have two teams working on the game, or porting it over. They don't come close to the Kings, though - EA.

If you've got developers like Insomniac, Evolution Studios, NaughtyDog, Factor 5 and Ninja Theory, but to name a few, developing games that will run from start to finish with nary a problem in sight, then why can't you have the bigger games developers (in terms of man power and budget) doing the same? Heck, look at Insomniac. They create a new game every year, and bring it out more or less on time. If they can do that with one team that's probably half the size of something at Ubisoft or EA, then why can't the others?


----------



## Green (Nov 25, 2007)

I agree that older consoles (PS2 and before) had no trouble, but I'm saying it is becoming more common these days (expecially considering the trouble with some 360s dying etc, gone are the days of the solid reliability you used to get with consoles). I hear the Orange box is having some trouble running on the... PS3 was it? Or 360, can't remember which.

Next gen consoles will just be big PCs, I think  Especially now you can get different HDD options and media/internet content as well. You'll be doing your banking on your PS4.

And I think they will also at some point (maybe next gen, maybe the one after) start bringing in different tiers of performance to match the different tiers of storage space. So you'll have the XBox 3 with one chip and 6 gig RAM and then you'll have the XBox 3 MAX that will have higher spec, and certain games will not work on the lower spec. And then the transformation will be complete!

This may never come about, but if it does, remember where you heard it first!

-Yellow, making tenuous electronics goods predictions since 1998


----------



## Lenny (Nov 25, 2007)

Orange Box has horrible problems running on the PS3 yes. Can't for the life of me think wh... oh yes! That's right. Valve hate the PS3 so they've got an EA team porting it over. Glee...

I could do my banking on the PS3, to be honest - it's got a web-browser, and I can plug in a USB keyboard and mouse. Not to mention that I cant urn the whole console into a computer as it has the ability to install any Linux OS. 

I see a problem with your prediction, I'm afraid. The fact is, consoles are not like PCs - every single console is the same, or should be. Because of this, developers know exactly what they're programming for, and can make the most of it (well, some can). To play a console game, you just need the console.

Let's take Crysis. To play it you don't just need a computer. You need a computer that's a few thousand pounds. A computer with technology from two years in the future.

If you start making consoles that are different specs, then the developers have a hard job on their hands - do they develop for the lowest common denominator and sacrifice the game quality, or go for the best, and sacrifice fan base? The whole beauty of a console is that if you pick up a console game, it will play when you put it in.

Just as an example to further this - the Xbox 360 was originally released in two SKUs. One with a 20gb HDD, the other without any form of storage. For the past year and a bit, developers from around the world have been complaining that they can't create a game properly because they can't save data to a HDD and speed the whole game up, because half of the consoles don't have HDDs. The PS3 SKUs, however, no matter which one you buy, ALWAYS comes with a HDD. Developers have been praising that.


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 25, 2007)

You're never go to see a console SKU that has options for differing levels of performance. Hard drive space, connectivity, out-of-the-box feature-sets, yes; ram, gpu, and processor options, no. It's not going to happen, ever. None of the hardware manufacturers are ever going to take that plunge, not even Microsoft.

As for consoles having more issues these days, they do. I've got a 360, Wii and PS3, and each one has given me problems. While you may not have had any issues Lenny, the problems are there. And it's not always due to botched programming either.


----------



## Green (Nov 25, 2007)

Never is a strong word. The reasons developers will develop for consoles is because they can make a fortune doing it. I think the main reason people buy consoles is not because they don't want to have to worry about whether their video card is good enough (though that is one reason), but because they like to play with their mates in front of the TV and they want the best franchises as soon as they're available. And if Microsoft were to bring out two different specs for their next console, people will still buy them.

Don't forget, developers already develop for different machines - XBox, PS3, PSP, whatever. Adding in two flavours of the PS4 (or 5) is just one more platform among many (and look at Rebellion, who can churn out games in under six months and who develop proprietary engines that can be easily tweaked for multi-platform). The higher level games would probably only come out on the higher spec machines anyway, which would be good for console manufacturers, because it encourages the hardcore to splash out, leaving the lower specs for the casual.

I will stick by my prediction  If it hasn't happened by the gen after the next one, I owe you two a Coke.


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 25, 2007)

> Never is a strong word. The reasons developers will develop for consoles is because they can make a fortune doing it. I think the main reason people buy consoles is not because they don't want to have to worry about whether their video card is good enough (though that is one reason), but because they like to play with their mates in front of the TV and they want the best franchises as soon as they're available. And if Microsoft were to bring out two different specs for their next console, people will still buy them.


In this case "never" is the accurate word. Individuals buy consoles for a number of reasons; it's safe to say that sitting in front of the TV with a few friends is trivial next to their being affordable, easy to use and standardized. Stand by your prediction all you want, but eliminating those three aspects of a platform almost guarantees it will be a market failure. Companies have tried to do the very same thing, several times, and each and every time they've either lost millions (Atari) or haven't even been able to get the hardware out of the testing phase (The Phantom).

This market is built on a specific platform. We've already seen that multiple SKU's can be confusing to a consumer and the potentiality of having multiple versions of the same hardware on the market hurting sales is great. Also, developers already have their hands full with multi-platform releases - quite a few of them won't even give the Wii consideration, being they've already got their teams working on PS3 and 360 versions of the same title. And while porting a game to work on the Wii controls is a major part of that, another large part of that is the prospect of having to rebuild their entire engine to work on the Wii hardware. You seem to think this type of development would be as simple as with the PC - where PC developers build their games at the highest level of visual fidelity and scale downward from there. That wouldn't be the case with  multiple consoles. No matter how closely these systems mimic PC's the hardware and development platforms are inherently different, across all the different platforms. 

The console business is almost as old as the consumer PC market, and there's a reason that, for the past 30 years, a change like this hasn't already taken place. It's not going to happen, not just because the developers and hardware manufacturers won't let it happen, but the consumers simply wont buy into it. (32X, Sega-CD, Expansion Paks, Turbo-CD, DD Drive - there's not one example of a successful hardware upgrade - all of which promised better visuals and more robust gameplay experiences.)



> And if Microsoft were to bring out two different specs for their next console, people will still buy them.


They did this already; the Core system was a sales flop, and all that lacked was a HDD and wireless controller. Initial sales for the Core seemed to be strong, but it was clear later that shortages of premium systems were the main factor for those sales numbers. Once supply began to meet demand, Core sales dropped at a staggering rate.


----------



## Cayal (Nov 26, 2007)

Lenny said:


> Orange Box has horrible problems running on the PS3 yes. Can't for the life of me think wh... oh yes! That's right. Valve hate the PS3 so they've got an EA team porting it over. Glee...



Orange Box isn't out on PS3 yet?


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 26, 2007)

Not released yet, no - but final code is out there and in the hands of journalists and all of them are reporting major performance issues.


----------



## Lenny (Nov 26, 2007)

Well, near final code. The game hasn't gone gold yet, so there's still time for EA to, erm, "fix it".

It's out on PS3 around the 11th December, ish, unless it's delayed once again.


----------



## Harleyquin (Nov 26, 2007)

The freeform city scapes are by far the outstanding point of this... it does as a lot here have said suffer from repertition.

Think spiderman the game - lovely time swinging around newyork anyplace you go.. but in reality theres only 4 - 5 types of "random" mission.. but I rember grand theft Auto - back in the early days there was only 2 - 4 missins here all redone a hundered times - now though theres a lot more variety in that game... perhaps this game can be expanded now they have the cities all developed - it certainly wouldnt take much to write an additional 20 - 30 "random" events to interact with... perhaps some assasenations for cash, and then choices of gear or some such.


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 26, 2007)

If you're referring to GTA 3, there was actually quite a bit of variety in that title. The missions were varied and there were tons of side quests to be done; the ambulance, firetruck, taxi and police missions, as well as collectibles. That's not to say GTA was a better game, I personally disliked it, but it's still a standard in open-world game design - one that many games, including Assassin's Creed, are still trying to emulate. 

I've since gone back and tried to play Assassin's Creed again, after finishing Mass Effect and bowling through a 60 star play-through of Mario Galaxy, and I'm noticing the game is best enjoyed when played at a snails pace. When you attempt to play the game very strategically that's where it seems to shine, and I'm betting a lot of that has to due with the fact that the repetition - while still there - seems less frequent. I was playing like this for the first few hours during my first session, but decided to speed it up a bit, seeing as I had a laundry list of titles waiting to be played. 

Though I still have some complaints, my guess is that most people willing to play the game as stealthily as possible will have a better experience.


----------



## Cayal (Nov 27, 2007)

Commonmind said:


> Not released yet, no - but final code is out there and in the hands of journalists and all of them are reporting major performance issues.




IGN: The Orange Box Preview

Hands on. Typical EA crap.


----------

