Support NeoGAF

[Dice]

...and it sucks! Could someone explain to me how this game is good?

My problems:

1) The much-touted fighting system is terrible. The basic one-button combo is more effective than all the others, just make sure to throw in the occasional jump-over-head move so people don't hit you. Repetitive and boring to the extreme.

2) The platforming would be interesting if only it were intuitive. Due to the crappy camera and having to look around to make sure the next ledge is actually there it's pretty slow and boring. The prince's abilities are supposed to be amazing but they lose their appeal when it's all so slow and one-thing-at-a-time.

3) Time reversal is a cheap gimmick to justify cheap dangers. Ok, we're just going to put some moving buzzsaws out here and the only way to know the timing to pass them is to learn it through trial-and-error. If you run out of sand just continue from your save like every other game in the universe. How gimmicky and not-really-different.

4) That's all there is to complain about! Simplicity in design is only good if the simple elements are good. This takes some wonderful concepts and completely fails to pull them off just like Wild 9 did on PS1 (completely unrelated game but that's what I am reminded of).

Aside from Sands of Time, I also played the second one and it was even worse.

For better games (and series, where it applies) see: Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, God of War, Shinobi, Mario Sunshine, Gunvalkyrie, The Bouncer, The Mark of Kri, etc.

 

[castle007]

NG>>>>>PoP
God of War>>>>>PoP

 

[castle007]

dp

 

[Father_Mike]

which pop did you play? Sands is the only exceptional one.

 

[Dice]

which pop did you play? Sands is the only exceptional one.

This was Sands of Time and then later Warrior Within.

 

[Solid]

u bad

 

[PedroLumpy]

I find these games are much more fun when they force you to move fast. Unfortunatly that does not come up to much in PoP, although I didn't play the 2nd, and it has those Dahaka chases... and some parts in the third with the dark prince are fast, But that's more exception rather than the rule. Tomb Raider Legend has a similar problem. Now bear in mind I obviously enjoyed PoP much more than you did, but you may try forcing yourself to go from one jump to the next as fast as you can. I got more of a kick out of it when you moving as fast as you can through the environment.

This is only if you've bought it already of course. If you rented it or something it's probably not worth it for you to give it extra attention.

Is the story/characters at all compelling for you in PoP?

 

[NME]

I could never beat the (first?) boss where you fought with the young lass with the bow against the old zombie and his minions.

As such, I feel like I really missed out on a fine game.

 

[Xrenity]

I find these games are much more fun when they force you to move fast. Unfortunatly that does not come up to much in PoP, although I didn't play the 2nd, and it has those Dahaka chases... and some parts in the third with the dark prince are fast, But that's more exception rather than the rule. Tomb Raider Legend has a similar problem. Now bear in mind I obviously enjoyed PoP much more than you did, but you may try forcing yourself to go from one jump to the next as fast as you can. I got more of a kick out of it when you moving as fast as you can through the environment.

Yup, that's awesome.

I loved all PoP games, but damn, Assassin's Creed will beat it hands down.

 

[Zenith]

eh, SoT's wall puzzles were totally intuitive. way more than the sequels'.

 

[Father_Mike]

Well I feel sorry for you that you couldn't enjoy Sands, It was something really special; at least at the time it came out. The only valid complaint you have is the combat, which is everyone’s complaint; which is mind blowing considering that its what the developers chose to focus on in 2. I feel you didn’t know what you were getting into just going by the list of games you said were better. Non of them are remotely close to PoP in anyway. It’s not DMC, NG or Mario so it shouldn’t be compared to them. Hell the closest game you have to compare it to is GoW (haven’t played Gunvalkyrie though) and GoW and PoP are still very different from each other.

Combat sucks, get over it in Sands its just a means to break up the platforming action.

The Platforming is supposed to be fast, now I rarely had a problem with it or the camera, but when I did it was nice to have the Time mechanic. I mean what was the last fast platformer we played, Sonic? How many people would be able to put up with Sonic’s instant deaths now a days? Not many. The Sands defiantly improved the game more than they take a way. Also even though this is a fast platformer, your hardly ever timed and more often than not your given a place to view and plan a whole platforming segment. You shouldn’t be having trouble with the buzzsaws if you plan and time your stuff.

I have no idea what your talking about when you say it’s a game with simple designs. Jak and Daxter is a platformer with simple designs. PoP is not.

 

[Dice]

Well I feel sorry for you that you couldn't enjoy Sands

That's very sweet of you.

The only valid complaint you have is the combat, which is everyone’s complaint; which is mind blowing considering that its what the developers chose to focus on in 2.

In quantity, not quality.

I feel you didn’t know what you were getting into just going by the list of games you said were better. Non of them are remotely close to PoP in anyway. It’s not DMC, NG or Mario so it shouldn’t be compared to them. Hell the closest game you have to compare it to is GoW (haven’t played Gunvalkyrie though) and GoW and PoP are still very different from each other.

DMC shows how the combat should go, NG shows how fluid the combat and platforming should be, Mario shows how intuitive the platforming should be. GoW seems to be going for something similar in it's melee combat except it actually succeeds. GV is just another example of intuitive action, like Shinobi (which has wall running).

Combat sucks, get over it in Sands its just a means to break up the platforming action.

Nothing in a game should ever be just filler. It is at very least 30% of the game so if it sucks ass that's 30% of the score that should be taken off.

The Platforming is supposed to be fast, now I rarely had a problem with it or the camera, but when I did it was nice to have the Time mechanic.

I think your definition of fast gameplay is different from mine.

I mean what was the last fast platformer we played, Sonic?

Wow.

Also even though this is a fast platformer, your hardly ever timed and more often than not your given a place to view and plan a whole platforming segment. You shouldn’t be having trouble with the buzzsaws if you plan and time your stuff.

Nope, a lot of times they are too far out to know exactly when to start running along that wall. It does take planning, also multiple tries to learn the speed of the running and whatnot.

I have no idea what your talking about when you say it’s a game with simple designs. Jak and Daxter is a platformer with simple designs. PoP is not.

Did I say "designs"? No, I did not use plural. I agree the "designs" of the levels and whatnot are rather compelx. I was talking about the design of the gameplay. This is not an adventure game, it is an action platformer. There is platforming, fighting and nothing else, so those two better be damn good.

 

[Tieno]

I really enjoyed Sands and Two Thrones. I don't care for the combat, but it's the best platforming I've ever done. I really like that. Too bad it gets held back by a lack of polish to be truly great. I really hope and think Assassin's Creed is going to be take that genre even further.

 

[charlequin]

Nothing in a game should ever be just filler. It is at very least 30% of the game so if it sucks ass that's 30% of the score that should be taken off.

Shrug. If you're going to have high (and possibly unreasonable) standards you're going to enjoy fewer things. There's nothing really wrong with the combat, it's just repetitive. If it were a combat game or it came up more often it would suck, but it's just there to glue the platforming sections together.

Nope, a lot of times they are too far out to know exactly when to start running along that wall. It does take planning, also multiple tries to learn the speed of the running and whatnot.

This just isn't true, though. The game does have elements of retrying because at its heart it's a puzzle-platformer, but there really aren't any trial-and-error judge-the-distance segments. The engine isn't completely "analog," it's got discrete areas that will all produce the necessary result. It's very difficult to be in the right place, performing the correct action, and still fail.

 

[S-Wind]

Did you play the crappy PS2 version?

 

[Father_Mike]

DMC shows how the combat should go, NG shows how fluid the combat and platforming should be, Mario shows how intuitive the platforming should be. GoW seems to be going for something similar in it's melee combat except it actually succeeds. GV is just another example of intuitive action, like Shinobi (which has wall running).

Again your asking why this apple isn't an orange. I said DESIGNS because a game isn't just one design its many that come together to make a game. Ok lets take one of your examples. "DMC shows how combat should be", now lets look at something really simple here. How would the controls work? Do you drop all the extra bottons used for platforming in PoP to put in the controls for DMC. Do you go into a special combat mode when all the controls change? Would that break flow? PoP's combat was built for PoP. It was built to take into the platforming into mind during battle. DMC was not.

Really You can't just copy and past different pieces of games into one. I mean lets take the shooting parts of Halo, and the adventure parts of zelda, the wall running parts of Shinobi, and make it all fluid like in NG. We would have a guaranteed hit wouldn't we?

Nothing in a game should ever be just filler. It is at very least 30% of the game so if it sucks ass that's 30% of the score that should be taken off.

It wasn't filler its was a way to break up platforming sections. There is a difference. And I agree the combat might have failed but it wasn't filler.

I think your definition of fast gameplay is different from mine.

I was talking about fast game play in a platformer.



Nope, a lot of times they are too far out to know exactly when to start running along that wall. It does take planning, also multiple tries to learn the speed of the running and whatnot.

no not really, but that’s just my opinion and ovously you have a different one

Again your only valid complant is combat. And we have had this discussion a million times.

 

[Feindflug]

Did you play the crappy PS2 version?

The PS2 version is very good, graphics-wise is slightly inferior from the XBOX version, has some frame-rate drops here and there but the game is definitely playable and it looks great at 480p/16:9.

 

[the year 20XX]

which pop did you play? The original 2D Prince of Persia is the only exceptional one.

Sands is okay also, but not Prince of Persia good.

 

[S-Wind]

The PS2 version is very good, graphics-wise is slightly inferior from the XBOX version, has some frame-rate drops here and there but the game is definitely playable and it looks great at 480p/16:9.

Both the Xbox and the GameCube versions look way better, with none of the PS2's characteristic longer load times and framerate problems to boot. If it weren't for the shitty sound problems on the GameCube, the GameCube version would be a clear winner over the PS2 version - Ubisoft should have had more than one guy work on porting it over.

 

[charlequin]

I agree with everything the OP has said. I'm still baffled as to how Sands of Time recieved the praise it did. Everything about it is extremely mediocre with the possible exception of graphics.

Alright then, what's the really outstanding acrobatic puzzle-platformer with A+ presentation I've been missing out on all this time?

 

[Father_Mike]

I agree with everything the OP has said. I'm still baffled as to how Sands of Time recieved the praise it did. Everything about it is extremely mediocre with the possible exception of graphics.

when did you play it? maybe it doesn't hold up as well now; I havent played it since it came out.

Spoiler

the OP comments where still wrong for the most part regardless of how well it holds up

 

[Feindflug]

Both the Xbox and the GameCube versions look way better, with none of the PS2's characteristic longer load times and framerate problems to boot. If it weren't for the shitty sound problems on the GameCube, the GameCube version would be a clear winner over the PS2 version - Ubisoft should have had more than one guy work on porting it over.

XBOX (I've never played the GC version) version look way better? I recently played both versions @ 480p and both games looked awesome with the XBOX version having slightly better IQ...I also can't remember anything annoying with the loading times on the PS2 version.

The PS2 version is totally playable, looks great and the minor frame-rate problems don't affect the gameplay at all so I wouldn't call the PS2 version crappy...

 

[S-Wind]

XBOX (I've never played the GC version) version look way better? I recently played both versions @ 480p and both games looked awesome with the XBOX version having slightly better IQ...I also can't remember anything annoying with the loading times on the PS2 version.

I haven't played any version at 480p. At standard definition the Xbox version looks slightly better than the GameCube version, which looks better than the PS2 version.

The PS2 version is totally playable, looks great and the minor frame-rate problems don't affect the gameplay at all so I wouldn't call the PS2 version crappy...

I never said the PS2 version was unplayable, just inferior. I don't know why anyone would want to play that version IF they can play the better version on the Xbox.

When it comes to multiplatform games on the Xbox, GameCube and PS2, time and time again the PS2 versions tend to be the inferior ones. Sometimes it just means the graphics are less pretty, which usually isn't a big deal. But sometimes it means having to put up with longer load times. For somes games, like Killer7, that's a deal breaker.

 

[Dice]

Again your asking why this apple isn't an orange. I said DESIGNS because a game isn't just one design its many that come together to make a game.

So by "many" you mean "two"?

Ok lets take one of your examples. "DMC shows how combat should be", now lets look at something really simple here. How would the controls work? Do you drop all the extra bottons used for platforming in PoP to put in the controls for DMC. Do you go into a special combat mode when all the controls change? Would that break flow? PoP's combat was built for PoP. It was built to take into the platforming into mind during battle. DMC was not.

I wasn't talking about using the same buttons and weapons or whatever else, I was talking about the characteristics of speed, fluidity and variety in the fighting. But even if I were talking about a direct translation it wouldn't be unreasonable. You can take out the gun button because PoP doesn't have them, then you are left with a attack, jump, dodge and guard buttons. Does PoP have those? Yes. So why can't it make the combat even 1/4th as interesting as DMC? There is no excuse.

Really You can't just copy and past different pieces of games into one. I mean lets take the shooting parts of Halo, and the adventure parts of zelda, the wall running parts of Shinobi, and make it all fluid like in NG. We would have a guaranteed hit wouldn't we?

...and taking your absurd and deliberate misrepresentation of what I obviously meant to extremes.

It wasn't filler its was a way to break up platforming sections. There is a difference. And I agree the combat might have failed but it wasn't filler.

If it's just some poorly designed crap to break up the supposed point, then it's filler. That is what makes something filler, or do you think collectathons are wonderful because they keep you busy between tasks?

I was talking about fast game play in a platformer.

Oh, so you mean not fast. Seeing as how the game is completely built around a super skilled warrior, I was comparing to other such games (which have superior and more intuitive platforming). Though, I also mentioned Mario for a reason.

Shrug. If you're going to have high (and possibly unreasonable) standards you're going to enjoy fewer things.

If I have played a dozen other games that achieved the level of quality I'm looking for in that aspect of the game, I don't think it's unreasonably high standards.

There's nothing really wrong with the combat, it's just repetitive. If it were a combat game or it came up more often it would suck, but it's just there to glue the platforming sections together.

Repetitive is something wrong, and see what I said before about filler.

 

[charlequin]

Are you needlessly throwing "acrobatic" in there just so I can't say Ico? I know that isn't what you wanted to hear.

Well, Ico is kind of like PoP without the gameplay I liked, so no, it's not really what I wanted to hear. It's presentation is actually more impressive than what I consider to be PoP's already really high-quality presentation, and the escort element is pretty interesting, unique, etc. but Ico doesn't let me leap, run, and climb quickly and elaborately into improbable places.

And being the lone man in a genre (acrobatic puzzle-platforming) isn't a free pass.

My point is really more like "are you sure PoP is a kind of game that you want to play?" The acrobatic element and the process of determining the series of moves that'll improbably get me from point A to point B without falling to my death below is what was fun about the game. That was pretty much inherently fun to me and I thought the locations and specific puzzles in SoT were enjoyable to unravel and rewarding once I mastered them.

The fighting system is absolutely wretched even in the context of what it attempts.

Maybe I have a different standard here? It wasn't broken or anything, it was just kind of repetitive. Hit guy, throw guy, hit guy, throw guy, eat guy with sand knife, repeat. I didn't really expect "action" combat.

Ico has a similar ideal here, but approaches it in an even more minimalist way that manages to fit in rather seemlessly to the rest of the game. PoP's fighting sections are abrupt and very much disassociated from the platforming.

I can agree on the abruptness, I guess, but I actually found Ico's combat more annoying than PoP's, probably because it controlled about as well (and with as few options) but added the ticking-clock don't-let-them-capture-Yorda element.

 

[Dice]

Bear in mind, it's not just that I don't like the game. The "Game of the Year" status it had in it's time only makes it's faults seem much worse. If I'm exaggerating the negative aspects, it couldn't possibly be worse than the way so many exaggerated it's positive aspects.

 

[Feindflug]

Did you play the crappy PS2 version?

That's exactly what you called the PS2 version...and I am a multiplatform owner and I know that the XBOX 90% of the time had the best versions of multiplatform games last gen but I thought that calling PoP: SoT PS2 a crappy or bad version is a bit too much.

Crappy PS2 version IMO is for example Max Payne 2...that's crappy.

 

[jooey]

The Bouncer

ok well it was nice talking to you say hi to the kids for me bye

 

[S-Wind]

That's exactly what you called the PS2 version...

Yes. Crappy. That is EXACTLY what I called it. I never said it was unplayable. I said it was inferior. Why does it seem like you equate "crappy" with "unplayable"?

and I am a multiplatform owner and I know that the XBOX 90% of the time had the best versions of multiplatform games last gen but I thought that calling PoP: SoT PS2 a crappy or bad version is a bit too much.

We've already touched on this in this thread.

I see you and I disagree on the weight of the ward "crappy". For me, when it comes to multiplatform games of DC/PS2/GC/Xbox generation and onward, I have VERY LITTLE patience and tolerance for jaggies, blurriness, low-res textures, longer load times, poor controls, etc.

I spent good money to own all consoles. Damn right I'm going to make sure my investment gets me the best console gaming experience possible. I didn't buy all 4 consoles of this past generation to play an inferior version of a game.

 

[Zapages]

Prince of Persia Sands of Time is the only game that has the essence of the original 2D Prince of Persia Games.

Personally I didn't like Warrior Within as it was going for Nu-Metal/Combat oriented audience.

Sands of Time had better story and felt like a movie when you were playing through it when compared to its sequals.

NG and DMC are more Action oriented games, while Prince of Persia Series has been known for its puzzles (2D ones) and that continued in Sands of Time and the time mechanism helped heal all complains concerning the old 2D games that you died and had to start at a specific point. This is true in Sands of Time, if you have no sands left, but the sands are able to cheat your way through them.

The combat I agree was simplicitic, but was done so that it would just break the parts along the puzzles and platforming sections. I played the PC version and I don't know what are you talking about the jumping, as Sands of Time was fairly linear on how to do things around the broken down levels and stuff.

I think you were came in expecting an action adventure game with a heavy emphasis on Combat/Fast Combat like in DMC. But Prince of Persia Series was never about that since the early days when it was 2D(not talking about the SNES/Turbo CD/Genesis version). So having the Prince run/walk slowly is gives a bit of a nod to the older Prince of Persia games while evolving it so a whole new generation of gamers can appreciate it.

Personally I'll rank them like this:
Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame >> Sands of Time = Prince of Persia 1 (SNES) > Prince of Persia 1 (PC/Mac/Genesis) >>> The Two Thrones >> PoP 3D > Warrior Within