Assassin's Creed Reviews Confusion!

LiK

LiK

CAGiversary!
okay, so gamespot gave it a 9.0. 1up gave it a 7.0 and IGN gave it a 7.5 and gamepro gave it a 10! and it seems like all the reviewers are saying things that contradict each other. weird...

who's buying this game now that the reviews are out? i'm still on the fence...
 
[quote name='looploop']I'll get it if I can get a price match on the Fry's deal. 7-10 is a great score range to be in.[/quote]

Maybe you dont realize the problem here. Reviewers are contridictng each other on almost everything about this game.

Dont listen to AC reviews.
 
Well, if someone really wants the game, I suggest they probably get it. Those who don't really want it (or too unsure), I recommend they probably wait for pricecut or rent it. That's pretty much what I do with games that get mixed impressions.
 
7 - 7.5 is generally considered an above average score, but the disparity between 7/7.5 and 9/10 does raise a yellow flag of sorts.

It shouldn't stop people who were excited and were going to buy the game regardless, but does pose a small dilemma for anyone on the fence about it.

Me personally? I'll pass for now. There's just too many games and I've already earmarked SMG, Rock Band, and Mass Effect as my games for the rest of the year.
 
Reviewers disagree all the time.. that's hardly a "contradiction," just differing opinions

isn't there a demo for this yet?
 
damn, im on the fence on this game on either getting the collectors edition or just wait to see if theres more reliable reviews out there.

a demo would greatly help on my decision wether to spend 69.99 on the game or just pass on it.
 
$39.99 is too good a deal to pass up for this game

worst case, beat it, get your nerd points, and trade it in. cheaper than a rental.

GO GO FRY'S!
 
Hilary Goldstein is the weirdo praising Virtua Fighter 5 and calling it deep, yet refuses to divulge any information that would support it's depth.

I hate reviewers like that...
 
[quote name='terborx']Reviewers disagree all the time.. that's hardly a "contradiction," just differing opinions

isn't there a demo for this yet?[/quote]

well, it's not the scores alone. gamespot said the framerate is better on the PS3 over the 360 but IGN said it's the other way around... it makes it hard for me to decide which version to get even if i planned on buying it.
 
[quote name='MarkMan']Hilary Goldstein is the weirdo praising Virtua Fighter 5 and calling it deep, yet refuses to divulge any information that would support it's depth.

I hate reviewers like that...[/quote]

He's also a sefl-admitted Xbox 360 fanboy which IMO makes it a disserice for him to review anything on the PS3, as he will find anything wrong with the PS3 review and give a flyby on the 360.
 
Doesn't seem like a bad game ('cept the story), but the whole embargo slant is very interesting. It's probably just a game that divides its audience-- plenty of other games have received mixed reviews. but the embargo thing and the fact that it's a high profile game makes it all the more controversial.

[quote name='H.Cornerstone']He's also a sefl-admitted Xbox 360 fanboy which IMO makes it a disserice for him to review anything on the PS3, as he will find anything wrong with the PS3 review and give a flyby on the 360.[/QUOTE]


*checks watch* sdf is right on time
 
[quote name='MarkMan']Hilary Goldstein is the weirdo praising Virtua Fighter 5 and calling it deep, yet refuses to divulge any information that would support it's depth.

I hate reviewers like that...[/quote]Why would he need to though?
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']He's also a sefl-admitted Xbox 360 fanboy which IMO makes it a disserice for him to review anything on the PS3, as he will find anything wrong with the PS3 review and give a flyby on the 360.[/quote]QFT. Also read that the ps3 has enchanced graphics because of the blue ray drive, something the reviewers forgot to meniton 'cause they're xbots :cool: :roll:
 
I think i'll pass, the combat looked lousy from the previews and it must have stayed that way.

Care to provide a quote?
Blu-ray caused better textures??? Texture memory is always the limiter.
 
I would love a demo just to experience this game. Im not renting it or buying ti though. Whats up with these shallow third person free roaming games that have so much potential but end up so repetitive. First Crackdown, now this!
 
The disparity between the scores throws up some flags for good ol' fashioned bribery. I don't normally buy into conspiracies, but something funky seems to be going on.
 
[quote name='InuFaye']

Dont listen to reviews.[/QUOTE]
Fixed.

Anyway, this just better illustrates the two points I keep stressing.

1. Reviews need to drop the number rating.

2. Reviews are just some random person's opinion, and you should really play the game yourself.
 
[quote name='Lieutenant Dan']The disparity between the scores throws up some flags for good ol' fashioned bribery. I don't normally buy into conspiracies, but something funky seems to be going on.[/quote]

It really does feel like soemthing fishy is going on, or that some reviewers played the game longer than others. All the reviews say its repetitive, and my fear when I read reviews is that hte reviewer only scratched the surface, which can make okay games seem amazing.... for the first 3 days of play.
 
Well reviews sometimes are misleading, Halo 3 was reviewed from ign, or gamespot, like the most complete xbox360 game, a must..have.Well for me it wasn't ....
 
[quote name='LiK']okay, so gamespot gave it a 9.0. 1up gave it a 7.0 and IGN gave it a 7.5 and gamepro gave it a 10! and it seems like all the reviewers are saying things that contradict each other. weird...[/QUOTE]
Wait, you mean to say that reviews are just regular people with journalism degrees who have their own individual opinions which carry no tangible weight or worth whatsoever other than that bestowed upon them by each individual reading them?

NO fuckING WAY.

Reviewers are worthless. Except for the guy who does the voice-overs in the Gametrailers.com video reviews. That guy's cool.


[quote name='BULL_Ship']Blu-ray caused better textures??? Texture memory is always the limiter.[/QUOTE]
Truth. I hate how storage capacity alone is being used to try and support claims of graphical superiority, when it is completely secondary to the importance of how much of the graphical assets can be stored in RAM at a given instant.
 
I'm kinda torn on this one. I'd really like to check it out, but I'm not really willing to drop the cash on it. Any chance they're bringing a demo out later or is that a forever-no thing?
 
I don't really see much contradictory in the reviews. The score discrepency seems to come from how the reviewers felt about the control and combat (some found it awkward/repetitive, some didn't) and whether they minded the blatant sequel set-up.

Edit: Ok - yeah - the IGN and Gamespot reviews conflict about which system has framerate hiccups.
 
[quote name='Rei no Otaku']Fixed.

Anyway, this just better illustrates the two points I keep stressing.

1. Reviews need to drop the number rating.

2. Reviews are just some random person's opinion, and you should really play the game yourself.[/quote]So, if a random person says "this game, 100% of the time, freezes up at the start screen" or "the game has a framerate of 5 fps", you would still say "screw his opinion, I'll play it myself to find out!" Have fun wasting your money then, even $5 for a rental.
 
I cant remember the last GREAT game with this much disparity between reviews. I will hold off until the dust settles. I'm still playing CoD 4.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']So, if a random person says "this game, 100% of the time, freezes up at the start screen" or "the game has a framerate of 5 fps", you would still say "screw his opinion, I'll play it myself to find out!" Have fun wasting your money then, even $5 for a rental.[/quote]Those are facts, not opinions.

"This game is terrible because of the low framerate" or "This game is awful because it always crashes at the start screen" are opinions.
 
[quote name='daroga']Those are facts, not opinions.

"This game is terrible because of the low framerate" or "This game is awful because it always crashes at the start screen" are opinions.[/QUOTE]
Thank you daroga.

You know what I mean. Obviously if the game is fucking broken that should be something to pay attention to. I obviously was refering to the subjective portion of the reviews.
 
[quote name='Chuplayer']IGN says that load times on the PS3 version can be as long as 5 minutes.

What the fuck?![/quote]

IGN also says the same thing for the x360 review
 
ign also removed the comment on the framerate for the ps3:

IGN: The cities, as I stated earlier, are truly remarkable pieces of art. These big open worlds, which are fully interactive, do come at a severe cost on PS3. There is considerable texture pop-in and noticeable framerate issues. Playing back-to-back with the 360 version, it's obvious that Ubisoft did not devote enough resources to the PS3 edition. The framerate is considerably worse, so much so that it begins to affect gameplay in the later levels.
 
Not enough people are jumping on the "5 MINUTES WTF?" bandwagon.

Seriously, what the hell did they do to the game that it requires five minutes of loading? I think that's completely unprecedented.
 
I'm still going to get it at Fry's for $40. I think the issues are kind of overblown. Repetitive? There have been many games with repetition that got 9s. I just think the high expectations are the cause of all this fiasco.
 
I don't know, I'm having trouble believing the 5min loading time complaint.

If Zewone see's this he can say if it's true or not since he has the game.
 
The truth is that they probably just refused to grease IGN's palm, so IGN knocked the game off.

This is no different than GS's ridiculous Ratchet & Clank review.
 
i heard it was pretty short, im considering giving it a rent, i mean, the game does look neat and just about all games get repetative no matter what
 
[quote name='Nephlabobo']The truth is that they probably just refused to grease IGN's palm, so IGN knocked the game off.

This is no different than GS's ridiculous Ratchet & Clank review.[/quote]

Not nearly as ridiculous as 1 up also gave it a 7.7 and the preview builds for the game have not been flattering.
 
This game isn't similar to Thief at all, is it?

Oh, and why did IGN say PS3 has worse fps than the 360, but GS says the PS3 version has better fps..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top