IGN Reviews "Assassin's Creed"

Copied and censored from Penny Arcade:

I want you to understand that if Assassins Creed actually was a 7.0 game I'd tell you. I also want you to know that when I tell you it's really incredible I'm not BSing you because we're running ads for the game.

There are about four or five reviews of the game with scores in the low to mid 7's. I want to cover some of the common complaints these reviewers had in case anyone out there is worried about them.

Many of the reviews say that the ending is bad. Obviously I don't want to give away any spoilers but I will say that the final confrontation was exciting and gratifying. It was an extremely satisfying ending to this chapter of the game. Chapter is the important word here. This is a huge story, probably a trilogy at least. The game does end with a cliff hanger and it certainly sets up the rest of the arc but that's how the first part of any multi part story ends. If Star Wars had ended with Luke jumping into his X-Wing to go take on the Death Star that would be a really poor ending. It doesn't though, Luke destroys it and then we get hints about what's in store for our heroes. I'm telling you right now Altair destroys his Death Star.



I also can't be 100% positive but I'm guessing that some of these reviewers didn't let the credits role. Again, I don't want to spoil anything but wait for the credits to end. Until reviewers start posting their Gamertags along with the review we'll never really be able to tell how much of a game they played. But I'd be willing to bet some of them are missing the "Visions of the Future" achievement. I'm not gonna say why but If you don't have this achievement you can't say jack squat about the ending.

I think the biggest complaint I saw was that the missions become repetitive and boring. I actually didn't understand this complaint at all until just the other day. I had gotten an early copy of the game just like everyone else in the media but I was just playing it for fun. I'd cracked into it over the weekend and when I got into the office on Monday I started seeing these negative reviews. When I saw the low scores I was actually really upset and I wanted to talk about the game here on the site. I wanted to tell everyone that these guys were full of crap. However, since so many of the complaints were based on the ending I wanted to beat it first so I was sure I wasn't missing anything. I attacked the game again but this time with the goal of beating it as fast as I could. I was determined to get a post up on Tuesday and I was pushing through the game as fast as I could. I went from finding every high perch in a district to only getting the ones I needed to advance the story. I stopped saving every citizen and avoided any unnecessary confrontations. The informer missions that I had really enjoyed before, I now avoided because I knew they took too long to complete. I did the bare minimum of missions to progress the story and anything that "hindered" my progress was frustrating. Monday night after skipping over another combat (something I used to really enjoy) I stopped myself. What the hell was I doing? I wasn't playing the game because I wanted to I was playing it because I had a deadline and I needed to beat it. I stopped immediately and decided I'd write about the game whenever I got around to beating it. I spent another day and a half with it and during that time I hunted for hidden flags and explored the cities again. I came in this morning and finally did beat it but I did it at my own pace and I enjoyed every part of it.

Imagine what an open ended sandbox title must look like to a reviewer especially right now. How many games do they have piling up on their desks? A game like Assassins creed isn't meant to be played under a deadline. You shouldn't be trying to beat it as fast as you can so you can move on to Mass Effect or Mario Galaxy. As soon as I gave myself a deadline all of a sudden I understood all their complaints. It was like a Escher painting. I had put myself in their shoes and suddenly the landscape flipped and I could see games from their perspective. In the end I wasn't angry at them for their bad reviews. I actually just felt bad for them.
 
kirbyrockz said:
Ohh, so you're not saying that SHE flamed; rather, you're saying that she was mistaking a flame in this topic for an opinion.

Well, I guess I was misunderstood as well. I never thought anyone was flaming and just brought it up as a cautionary since Hines posted as though he felt he was being flamed. Sorry if anyone mistook that for me accusing anyone of flaming. :)

@ Cherry, I don't think 7 is a bad game at all. In fact, many of my favorite games have scored in that range. I was just bringing up the scores as a point that IGN is not the only site to have given it a score in that range. 1up also gave AC a 7/10 and GameSpy's 3.5 out of 5 becomes a 7 if you make it out of 10.
 
Someone brought a 360 and a nice large monitor and was playing Assasins Creed at school earlier this week. Needless to say, it looked hella fun. I'm defenitely getting this for PC once it comes out (which is another couple months :hh
 
Is it me or does it seem like GamePro has been giving almost every game lately a 5 out of 5 or 4.50 out of 5? They must be on the payroll of a lot of these publishers!
 
Or maybe they just have positive opinions on the great games that have been coming out.
 
Awesome post Stealth. I do agree, they are all on a deadline. It's sad really, but when you're paid to play through a game straight without any interruptions, it will hinder your judgement on games similar to the previous library you had to choose from that week.
 
The controls are perfect once you get used to them, very intuitive. Animation is flawless (easily one of the best animated games of all time, horseback riding in particular puts every other game to shame).

The only flaw is the weak AI. Possibly length, but I have been taking my time and I've really enjoyed the game.
 
Hinesmdc said:
lol

a new guy flaming me

never fails

I wasn't flaming you, I just think it's ridiculous to cheat yourself out of a game everyone else is saying is great because one site gave it an average review. It's foolish. Rent it and see. Normally I wouldn't care, but this game is that good.

Sorry if you thought I was flaming you.
 
Average would be 5, people, don't forget game reviews use the whole scale.
 
fhqwhgads said:
Average would be 5, people, don't forget game reviews use the whole scale.
Not really and that's a problem. There are very few games that get under a 5, and 5 is supposed to be average, so half the games out there should be higher than a 5 and half lower. As it is, a 7 is closer to average, for most reviewers, than a 5.
 
You know, what's really weird is that there's this huge gap between 7.9 and 8. I mean, when you see 7.9, you think this slightly above average game you should probably just leave, but once you see 8, it's a solid game you should try.
 
Well, yeah, but I'm not talking only IGN. I don't listen to any review unless it says the game is utter crap.
 
Maybe they know something we dont... Like, the disc contains a virus that will turn your 360 into a living, breathing creature that will find the other fellow suckers who bought AC and merge together to make the MEGAZORD360 ND DESTROY THE WORLD!!!!!0__o :o :o :o
 
All we'd have to do is trick the MEGAZORD360 onto a wobbly surface and it would Red Ring of Death itself.
 
Back
Top