Support NeoGAF

[Some Nobody]

Finishing a game is asking a lot, depending on the length of the game, and considering you're going to have to do more than just that one game most likely. But from what I read in the OP, it sounds like he didn't play very much at all. That's the problem here. You wanna play half the game and tell me what you think off that? Cool. I highly doubt the game takes a massive turn in either plot or gameplay from the 50% mark on--it just doesn't work that way.

But even with that, we really need to figure out a better way than this "be first or be irrelevant" style.

 

[jem0208]

No you didn't, all content in the game can be completed solo, yes that includes co-op missions. Heck I have an easier time doing something like heists solo than with co-op since there's less risks for mistakes.

I actually prefer playing some of the coop missions in single player. Makes it a challenge. Although some of them can be ridiculously difficult.

Multiplayer still required for them. Doesn't change my point at all. You don't need to jump to Ubisoft's defense for everything. Multiplayer is required for completionist/trophy hunter's sake, then there's mobile companion stuff if you count that too.

Loads of games have multiplayer achievements.

Come on guys, you know this is very common.
And some games are so bad within 2-3 hrs that you don't need to finish it to know it is bad.

In this case though, I have no idea how he gave AC: U a 9.
The game was bad on the technical side, and Uplay stuff was common knowledge.
You don't need 50hrs to know the game was bad.
I would have accepted a 6/10 from him if he wanted to complain about glitches, frame rate, and DLC/microtransaction.
/Shrug, probably a blacklist PR pressure on him if he didn't pretend the game was good.

I'm enjoying it, I actually think the game is very good. It's not always PR pressure, opinions can be different.

 

[SeanTSC]

AFAIK you need to do MP, in response to me asking what would be the point of side content that doesn't have skill points, money, and useful gear as rewards. I corrected that person by stating that everything all content in the game can be completed solo. Which another user pointed out that the trophies can't be earned without MP, which to a lot of people, would make it seem like there would be a ton of trophies that actually required MP, which is why I specified the number of trophies that require another player to be there for completion. While you decided to add absolutely nothing to the discussion by stating "Tag well deserved."

You absolutely *can* complete all of the MP missions solo, but they are clearly not meant to be played solo nor balanced around a single player. This is especially true for the 4 player missions. The Heists, which can be easier solo, only give you money. The Skill Point/Gear Rewards are all locked under the regular co-op missions.

Btw, the game is still buggy as fucking shit. It takes someone at minimum a month to do that shitty Companion App stuff and I finally finished it and then went and collected all of the Artifacts in the Rift with them finally unlocked. Guess what happened? I have them all collected in my log, but it didn't register properly to the game and my Altair Outfit is completely locked with me having NO way to fix it at all since I didn't have a save backed up on a USB drive that I could try collecting the artifacts again on.

Over a month spent on that terrible Companion App and I can't actually get a few of the rewards for it. That's some serious bullshit.

 

[thelastword]

I'm sorry, you need to complete a game before you review it. I know that many reviewers have not been doing so and in many cases you see it in their writing when you play the game yourself. This is like watching the intro or half a movie then reviewing it.

 

[plasmawave]

I wonder if he's willing to refund for those who bought the game based on his review?

"Sorry kid, turns out this game is no good at all lulz"

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

I'm sorry, you need to complete a game before you review it. I know that many reviewers have not been doing so and in many cases you see it in their writing when you play the game yourself. This is like watching the intro or half a movie then reviewing it.

A movie that can last 40+ hours...

 

[OraleeWey]

I'm sorry, you need to complete a game before you review it. I know that many reviewers have not been doing so and in many cases you see it in their writing when you play the game yourself. This is like watching the intro or half a movie then reviewing it.

Or at least make it known how far they got to in the game. Can't expect every reviewer to play a 50 hour each time he reviews a game.

 

[Briarios]

I wonder if he's willing to refund for those who bought the game based on his review?

"Sorry kid, turns out this game is no good at all lulz"

Anyone who buys a game off a single review deserves what they get. There was plenty of information out about the game if one just looked.

So, here we have a reviewer doing what all reviewers do ... The difference is, he admitted what he did was not optimal, and had the ethical wherewithal to bring it to everyone's attention. If he'd said nothing, no one would be the wiser and nothing would change. Jumping on the guy for being honest does a disservice to the changes we'd like to see. We don't have to condone the original review, but we should at least be appreciative of the effort of correction.

 

[CozMick]

I love when a site pulls a review score "for the people" looooooooong after the initial sales based on reviews have gone.

Cheque bounced?

 

[BriGuy]

"Fuck you, but thanks for your honesty" sums up my reaction pretty well.

 

[Caronte]

The damage is done already. Thank god I couldn't care less about reviews when buying games.

 

[m_dorian]

He should be commented for his honesty but he is not to be trusted.
But is he?

Because he says that the game's skills cannot be collected unless the player does co-op and many people here say that you can get all the skills without it.

So whom to believe?

 

[Randy]

Is there a interview out there with Ubisoft giving a response to the general feedback on the internet on the game?

 

[Alcoholikaust]

So he wrote his original review before completing the game, mmmm

this is my biggest problem with reviews as a whole.

edit:

I highly doubt the game takes a massive turn in either plot or gameplay from the 50% mark on--it just doesn't work that way.

You don't play many games do you?

 

[ArtHands]

When you write for a gaming website, you really have to produce reviews quickly if you want to remain competitive; whether gamers don't understand this or don't wish to accept it, I don't know. And it's irrelevant, anyway. What matters is that Assassin's Creed Unity didn't deserve a 9.

"don't blame me, blame the system"

 

[Crossing Eden]

I actually prefer playing some of the coop missions in single player. Makes it a challenge. Although some of them can be ridiculously difficult.

I agree.

You absolutely *can* complete all of the MP missions solo, but they are clearly not meant to be played solo nor balanced around a single player. This is especially true for the 4 player missions. The Heists, which can be easier solo, only give you money. The Skill Point/Gear Rewards are all locked under the regular co-op missions.

Btw, the game is still buggy as fucking shit. It takes someone at minimum a month to do that shitty Companion App stuff and I finally finished it and then went and collected all of the Artifacts in the Rift with them finally unlocked. Guess what happened? I have them all collected in my log, but it didn't register properly to the game and my Altair Outfit is completely locked with me having NO way to fix it at all since I didn't have a save backed up on a USB drive that I could try collecting the artifacts again on.

Over a month spent on that terrible Companion App and I can't actually get a few of the rewards for it. That's some serious bullshit.

Some of the missions are definitely very hard to do solo, like the one where you

Spoiler

Protect Napoleon from snipers.

, but others scale very well with team size, like the

Spoiler

one where you have to rescue imprisoned assassins and the food chain.

. Also skill points aren't "locked." That's an odd way of describing it, they're earned by playing the game's content, SP missions and Co-op missions especially. Just playing the campaign won't give you enough skill points to unlock every single upgrade and perk but that's basically the same as saying that just playing the main missions in Dragon Age, Skyrim or any RPG for that matter won't get you to the level cap.

 

[pantsmith]

Is there a publication or site out there that lists how long the journalist played the game in their reviews? It'd be pretty ballsy but I think people would appreciate it.

Kotaku does, off the top of my head, and they break that time down for you too so you get a better idea of what they spent time with.

 

[DevilFox]

You may call it unprofessional if you wish.

If I wish? Oh boy.
Sorry, the excuses are worthless even if I understand where he's coming from. At best they're telling me that I'm doing the right thing by ignoring most of the press.

 

[Thraktor]

I'm sorry, you need to complete a game before you review it. I know that many reviewers have not been doing so and in many cases you see it in their writing when you play the game yourself. This is like watching the intro or half a movie then reviewing it.

This isn't in any way practical. Magazines and websites don't take in nearly enough money to pay someone to play a game for a week solid prior to even starting the review. For 95% of games 5 to 10 hours is enough to give a sound judgement on the experience of playing it.

There are a couple of things I take issue with from the article, though:

Parts of the main game are closed off if you don't get the Dead Kings Expansion. This includes the Guillotine Guns, various pieces of equipment, and a different section of the map; you can see these when you play the game, but you're told several times that in order to access them, you have to get the DLC in question. Granted, that DLC is now free, but only because Ubisoft so badly botched the launch; they originally intended for the DLC to be premium. Except, that's not an expansion. That's something else you need to unlock more of what appears to be the base game. This is wrong. This is the kind of practice we really can't encourage in developers and publishers these days and again, it's not the kind of thing I really noticed until after playing for many hours.

I played the game from launch, and I'm 90% sure that the references to content from the Dead Kings DLC weren't in the game until after Ubisoft decided to make it free. Guillotine guns definitely weren't in the weapons list at launch, and I'm almost sure that the carriage that links you to the Dead Kings map wasn't there either. The carriage, in any case, is quite discreet, and definitely couldn't be considered to be "what appears to be the base game", it's not like there's a huge chunk of the Paris map cordoned off.

Up next is the fact that the more you play, the more you feel manipulated. You don't really find out until later that there's no way to earn all the Skill points you require simply by sticking to the single-player missions. Co-Op missions offer way more Skill points and while you can play them solo, they're quite difficult without allies. In order to open Initiate chests, you have to have a Uplay account; in order to open Nomad chests, you have to download (and extensively play) the Companion App; in order to see all the collectibles on the map, you have to use Helix points to snag Time Saver Packs. And as nobody can seem to figure out how to reliably earn Helix points, Ubisoft unsurprisingly asks you to pay for them. Prior to this game, viewpoints unlocked these collectibles and optional missions; now, viewpoints unlock less than half.

I can't really see anyone but a completionist having much of an issue with this. The chests just contain money and items that can be obtained easily enough through other methods. There are some costumes that are locked based on progress in the companion app, linking other AC games with uPlay, etc., but they're purely cosmetic, and you can't even see them until they're unlocked. There are quite a few weapon and clothing items which are linked to playing co-op and the multiplayer club system, but it's a major feature of the game, so I don't see the problem with tying some in-game rewards to it. In any case, you can quite easily kit yourself entirely with the top-rated armour and weapons without ever touching co-op or companion apps or anything like that.

 

[Messofanego]

Thats going to happen. It has always happened, even when we were reading our reviews from magazines in the 90's. I cannot even imagine it today. Theres a LOT of games to review, they don't exactly get a ton of lead time with the game before reviews are allowed up, and these days games are getting more and more involved and longer in some cases.

Toss in having to review during a busy holiday season, and gaming websites aren't exactly raking in the dough these days post dotcom bubble leading to smaller staff.... and yeah, I can see reviewers getting 80% through a game and then penning a review.

It shouldnt be that way though, it would be crazy if book/movie reviews did that IMO.

Let's not forget more and more publishers are foregoing review embargoes until launch day and not providing review copies until very late.

 

[QaaQer]

Is there a publication or site out there that lists how long the journalist played the game in their reviews? It'd be pretty ballsy but I think people would appreciate it.

Gamecritics.com

They also list how they got the game.

 

[StevePharma]

This "reviewer" always brings the fun.

Don't you guys remember the Killzone 2 mess? "EDGE MAGAZINE IS LYING TO YOU GUYS WITH THEIR REVIEW!!!"

"IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE SUN ISN'T HOT!" - Ben Dutka


A song was even written for him

 

[Valkerionseven]

While I do think you should finish a game before reviewing it, for larger games you also should have a pretty damn good idea of how you feel about it after only a few hours. The completing of the game imo, should only change how you feel about the plot or setting of the game, not your ideas of the mechanics, presentation, or any bugs/quirks it has or lack there of.

A good or bad plot in the reviewers mind should not affect the difference between whither the controls are garbage or not.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I think when you are reviewing a game, as a whole, you need to have 'finished' it. You can review what you played and not have done so, but this needs to be very clear in every review this happens. If you don't want to play a game for 50 hours to judge it, then judge only what you played.

In other words, be absolutely honest and clear what was reviewed. Don't say the game if it was only half of it.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Just imagine if there was no review embargo and review copies were sent out in decent time. Just imagine.

 

[oni-link]

Just imagine if there was no review embargo and review copies were sent out in decent time. Just imagine.

I don't think it would have changed much, most big budget and well marketed AAA games since the start of last gen have at the very worst got 75 or higher on metacritic, ACIII has a score in the mid 80s and thats a game almost universally panned by everyone except hardcore AC fans

 

[TylerDurden4321]

I understand that completing a game before reviewing it, is asking a lot, especially for smaller sites nobody will notice if they are not among the first to make their score accessible for metacritic, but that doesn't change the fact that it's unprofessional. I'm not saying there is no place for reviews and opinions that lack a professional view towards the impact or consequences, but then to say "hey, I fucked up"(?!)... why? Looks like clickbait to me.

[I use the term professional more in the context of being the member of a profession, which the reviewer probably isn't, still... journalistic ethics are a nice thing some other reviewers strive for]

 

[Terrified]

Genuine question - in debates like these, where 'completion' of a title can be important, how are people categorising something as 'complete'?

Like - I don't care for trophies, achievements etc. I tend to finish the 'main' game - follow the story, kind of thing. So with something like GTA, I'll play through the story missions, maybe dip my toe into some side quests, do some free roaming Eric. But once I'm done with the story, I class the game as 'complete'.

Do people expect reviewers to follow a similar strategy, or are we talking about 100%, all trophies, all side quests, all potential nooks and crannies explored? Like with something like Pokemon, catching *every* Pokemon, completing all after-game content etc?

I'm genuinely curious about this, so all answers welcome...

 

[OraleeWey]

Genuine question - in debates like these, where 'completion' of a title can be important, how are people categorising something as 'complete'?

Like - I don't care for trophies, achievements etc. I tend to finish the 'main' game - follow the story, kind of thing. So with something like GTA, I'll play through the story missions, maybe dip my toe into some side quests, do some free roaming Eric. But once I'm done with the story, I class the game as 'complete'.

Do people expect reviewers to follow a similar strategy, or are we talking about 100%, all trophies, all side quests, all potential nooks and crannies explored? Like with something like Pokemon, catching *every* Pokemon, completing all after-game content etc?

I'm genuinely curious about this, so all answers welcome...

Complete should be what you mentioned, finish the main campaign and youre done. This is the majority of the players. If you're talking about 100% in stats, you're going into a different territory. Either one of two people, minority of individuals who 100% stats mean, to them, they've completed the game, and those others who are trophy hunters. If I complete the main story, I've completed the game by my standards, however, I may still go for trophies.

 

[erawsd]

While I do think you should finish a game before reviewing it, for larger games you also should have a pretty damn good idea of how you feel about it after only a few hours. The completing of the game imo, should only change how you feel about the plot or setting of the game, not your ideas of the mechanics, presentation, or any bugs/quirks it has or lack there of.

A good or bad plot in the reviewers mind should not affect the difference between whither the controls are garbage or not.

I totally disagree. I think that how game mechanics "age" over the course of a game is supremely important. Whether gameplay begins to feel rote, whether the challenge is trivialized, or maybe the third act just feels rushed and it drags down the entire experience. Mordor is a great example of that. Half way through the PC becomes so powerful that it completely undermines the intent of the Nemesis system and then last few hours of the game are embarrassingly bad.

A lot of "Big games" also do a great job of creating the perception that they are more ambitious than they really are. On the surface, it would seem like Dragon Age is just bursting with branching paths... but 9 times out of 10 your decisions are mostly meaningless and they don't alter anything but a quick blurb of dialogue.

 

[JPS Kai]

Everyone really needs to realize how few reviewers play games all the way through before scoring them. It's surprisingly sad.

Even I can't manage that and I'm definitely small time. There will be times when the publisher asks not to play beyond a certain point to avoid spoilers. If you look at

Spoiler

Danganronpa,

no review mentions content beyond the end of the first chapter.

 

[KingJ2002]

Im glad he decided to back up on that score... it definitely isn't a 9... production values should not determine if the game is good or not.

AC Unity is not a fun game... it's a chore.

Ubisoft should consider releasing an assassins creed game every other year and in between release Prince of Persia titles. Bring other franchises back to relevancy while allowing the other title to bake in the oven a bit longer.

 

[MikeE21286]

This is very weird

 

[Archaix]

Just imagine if there was no review embargo and review copies were sent out in decent time. Just imagine.

Yeah, imagine how early he could have published his review from a position of ignorance. He could have been doing a disservice to his readers weeks before release without an embargo!

 

[ScatheZombie]

At first glance, this looks like a good thing - a reviewer admitting that he essentially didn't properly do his job, reflecting on that, correcting his mistake, and salvaging his integrity.

But ... actually reading the article, it's just another meaningless click-bait controversy-stirring bullshit write-up. He didn't actually retract the score. He didn't redo the review. He mentions a handful of reasons for his decision, all of which are evident fairly early on in the game.

That was literally the fastest I went from "Oh, wow, bravo to you, sir!" to "Oh, nevermind, this guy is just a fucking tool." in a very long time.

 

[matrix-cat]

I totally get that playing a 40, 50, 100ish hour game under a time limit in order to write a review is a huge ask, but that's the job. If you're going to write a professional review of a thing, the unspoken assumption is that you have experienced that thing in its entirety. It sucks that publishers only send out review code a few days in advance, and that the industry requires you to have a review ready to go the exact minute the game goes on sale, but unfortunately that's just the way things are. I'd much rather see more in-depth reviews written when the writer feels they're ready to write them, but that's not exactly something I can sign a petition to make happen.

I really like the idea of reviewers being transparent about exactly how much of the game they've played. If you can't finish it in time, tell me. If you stopped playing before the end, either because you hated the game or you felt you'd seen everything it had to offer, that's interesting information that's totally pertinent to a review of the game. If it's a glitchy mess I want to know about it, even if you think that those issues will probably be fixed when the game actually comes out.

I feel like this guy only played a few hours of Unity, couldn't be bothered with the rest and then just slapped a 9 on it because, hey, it's an Assassin's Creed and they're usually pretty good, right?

 

[ultratruman]

Secondly, this is not an attack on Ubisoft. In fact, I'm one of their biggest supporters and I appreciate their ambition in new IPs like Watch Dogs. I will add that I'm a huge fan of the Assassin's Creed franchise, so this isn't a personal vendetta against the series. Now, in regards to my review, let me be clear: I stand by the sentiments of the review, although I must now retract the overall score. I will not issue a new review and I won't change that score; I don't believe that's the right thing to do. Rather, I'm offering this editorial to all gamers out there.

Can you imagine reading a paragraph like this from a critic in any other medium

 

[Handy Fake]

Scathing.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

I still believe we should reward ambition in this industry. It's the only way we'll progress.

Noble sentiment, but ambition is not the same as the ostentation, greed and overwrought nature of these massive games that rake the lion's share of the industry's profits to the big publishers like Ubisoft.

When you want to reward devs and pubs and see progress, reward more wisely.

For example: DRIVECLUB, where are the retracted scores for that? Where's the leniency? Where's the progress?

 

[Haunted]

Better late than never. It doesn't excuse the first one he published (and automatically calls into question every other early review of his), but at least he did have his epiphany finally and went back to correct his incorrect first review.


I think his realisation and observation about how much Ubisoft tries to manipulate the player by design choices that have fewer to do with "game design" in the traditional sense and more with psychological hooks and sociological, well, manipulation, is particularly valuable.

It often feels like design by a bunch of marketing and monetisation experts instead of game designers, and that's something we usually see in exploitative facebook and mobile games, not in the AAA gamespace (that has changed now).

Up next is the fact that the more you play, the more you feel manipulated. You don't really find out until later that there's no way to earn all the Skill points you require simply by sticking to the single-player missions. Co-Op missions offer way more Skill points and while you can play them solo, they're quite difficult without allies. In order to open Initiate chests, you have to have a Uplay account; in order to open Nomad chests, you have to download (and extensively play) the Companion App; in order to see all the collectibles on the map, you have to use Helix points to snag Time Saver Packs. And as nobody can seem to figure out how to reliably earn Helix points, Ubisoft unsurprisingly asks you to pay for them. Prior to this game, viewpoints unlocked these collectibles and optional missions; now, viewpoints unlock less than half.

Parts of the main game are closed off if you don't get the Dead Kings Expansion. This includes the Guillotine Guns, various pieces of equipment, and a different section of the map; you can see these when you play the game, but you're told several times that in order to access them, you have to get the DLC in question. Granted, that DLC is now free, but only because Ubisoft so badly botched the launch; they originally intended for the DLC to be premium. Except, that's not an expansion. That's something else you need to unlock more of what appears to be the base game. This is wrong. This is the kind of practice we really can't encourage in developers and publishers these days and again, it's not the kind of thing I really noticed until after playing for many hours.

I didn't realize how much Ubisoft wanted you to be "connected" or how devious they were in essentially forcing you to play multiplayer. I will admit that you don't have to do all these things if you wish to simply zip through and finish the game. But really, that's not what an open-world sandbox game is about; almost nobody races through and does nothing else. In this case, it seems like most every optional thing in Unity has a string attached. I've been reflecting on the game as a whole for weeks now. I've tried to convince myself that the original score I handed out is justified, for a number of legitimate reasons. But if I sat down to review it now, after discovering everything that I've discovered, would I assign the same score? The answer, unfortunately, is no. As such, I'm issuing a retraction for the score although not the entire analysis, as a lot of that remains sound.

Required reading.

 

[Bobs Big Boy]

Simple solution is not to review what there is not a timeframe to finish. If we were without a PSExtreme review for an Assassin's Creed, the world would not suffer any loss.

 

[Haunted]

Simple solution is not to review what there is not a timeframe to finish. If we were without a PSExtreme review for an Assassin's Creed, the world would not suffer any loss.

The world wouldn't, however, PSExtreme most certainly would. Not having a review ready on release day means missing out on a ton of clicks. Something the people in charge over at PSExtreme probably wouldn't be too happy about.

 

[Messofanego]

Better late than never. It doesn't excuse the first one he published (and automatically calls into question every other early review of his), but at least he did have his epiphany finally and went back to correct his incorrect first review.


I think his realisation and observation about how much Ubisoft tries to manipulate the player by design choices that have fewer to do with "game design" in the traditional sense and more with psychological hooks and sociological, well, manipulation, is particularly valuable.

It often feels like design by a bunch of marketing and monetisation experts instead of game designers, and that's something we usually see in exploitative facebook and mobile games, not in the AAA gamespace (that has changed now).


Required reading.

Yeah had no idea this is how the game's systems worked. Then the whole hubbub about the microtransactions.

 

[KingFire]

This happens a lot, especially when a reviewer has to cover multiple large games in a short time-frame.

Well it should not happen.

Or just put in your review how many hours have been played.

 

[Einhander]

OP, why did you make a big deal out of some review from "PSX Extreme"? It sounds like a fan site that gets 20 views a day. =P

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

This is going to sound brutal, but if you have to resort to first or die tactics in regards to reviews maybe your site isn't successful enough to keep going in the first place. Produce better content and don't make your site's viability rely on the timeliness of reviews.

 

[Jarsonot]

Good for him! Finally standing up for gamers! I give his article a 9/10.


Oh wait, he didn't actually change anything? The review score is still a 9? I take it back, his article is meaningless and worthless. Would not read again. (Still a 9/10 though)

 

[mollipen]

I'm sorry, you need to complete a game before you review it. I know that many reviewers have not been doing so and in many cases you see it in their writing when you play the game yourself. This is like watching the intro or half a movie then reviewing it.

I wrote my Persona 3 review without having beat the game.

At the point that I wrote it, I'd played 104 hours of the game. Was I unqualified to review the game?

 

[King of Custard]

How can you take this guy seriously after this? He admits he ignored all the technical difficulties, didn't see the obvious problem with the co-op and the app and then tries to sell the fact that hey it's not his fault that as a person who is paid to look into the aspects of a game and provide a score for them he rushed it just because he's gotta get his review out first so didn't bother to look into the problems he already noticed.

No of course not your stupid for expecting him to do that!

 

[JPS Kai]

I'm sorry, you need to complete a game before you review it. I know that many reviewers have not been doing so and in many cases you see it in their writing when you play the game yourself. This is like watching the intro or half a movie then reviewing it.

I wrote a review on Monster Hunter Tri having logged in over a hundred hours and playing with every class but didn't 'complete the game'. Does that not count?