Support NeoGAF

[Absoludacrous]

I shan't render opinion until the time it is proper for me to do so! I thought about maybe designing a complex, da Vinci-like code in this message that would reveal what I'm thinking, but I'm pretty tired.

So you're saying you're tired of the game already....interesting....

 

[Christopher]

Why should Ubisoft care about "legitimacy" in games journalism? They're trying to sell their product and reviewers aren't entitled to free copies.

Agreed.

 

[Jerkapotamus]

I think you're mistaking "pacing" for "variety of tasks." AC was an open-world game and you could pace it however you liked. If you wanted to spend hours running around fucking things up you could, the game didn't force a pace on you at all. Whether you wanted to only do 2 or 3 tasks per assassination, or all 6, it was your choice.

I can sort of see the variety of tasks complaint (although the superior PC version doesn't suffer from this nearly as badly), but on the other hand, virtually every game these days gets that criticism leveled at it just due to the fact that any game mechanic gets repetitive after 5 hours or so. It's hard for me not to see that criticism as a failing of the player's attention span rather than the game itself.

I don't think AC's repetitiveness was really to blame; rather, it was the fact that none of the repeated tasks were actually fun. When I played AC, I thought what it needed was varied side missions that had their own unique contexts and weren't just setups for the actual assassinations. After playing a couple of other games open-world, especially Red Faction: Guerrilla, it seems to me that the repetition would have been alright if the missions were just fun. Red Faction's side missions were repetitive, but I still loved the game because the side missions didn't get old and remained fun throughout. Ubisoft has touted the number of mission types that they have this time around, but it will all be for naught if each mission type still sucks.

As long as AC2's side missions are fun, it should be a pretty good game. I do have a bit of trepidation about the combat, since countering was way too overpowered in the first game and destroyed any sense of needing to be stealthy. Batman really did the combat Ubisoft was looking to do with AC correctly; I hope it's a bit more like that.

 

[rainking187]

Agreed.

I wonder how some games that got multiple 10s would have been scored if the reviewers had paid the full $60 for them.

 

[wolfmat]

I shan't render opinion until the time it is proper for me to do so! I thought about maybe designing a complex, da Vinci-like code in this message that would reveal what I'm thinking, but I'm pretty tired.

You should work on your spelling, otherwise good job.

 

[rollingstart]

I shan't render opinion until the time it is proper for me to do so! I thought about maybe designing a complex, da Vinci-like code in this message that would reveal what I'm thinking, but I'm pretty tired.

the symbols are moving

 

[Thunderbear]

People suck. The excuse "it's business" is crap and forms the society for the worse. As if saying "that's business" gives any company an excuse to act however shitty they want.

The decent people that expose them. keep it up please.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

So, is this Computer Bild Spiele a big, reputable magazine? Or one who could be known for exaggerating/lying? Seems a bit much to believe a magazine I've never heard of, when they are the only ones making the claim and that's the only side we've heard (through a third-party, no less)

You haven't heard much about it because it's a German magazine. Regardless, the magazine has a large circulation in Germany. I'm continually astounded that people are still doubtful of how low some of these big game publishers can get in regards to assuring favourable reviews.

 

[Opiate]

Agreed.

Actually, I can come up with a possible reason: Ubisoft may want the industry they are a part of to gain wider legitimacy within society. By allowing the critical side of the industry to gain legitimacy, they help distance games from the puerile, fanboy sensibility that (I believe) many laymen perceive us as.

Of course, that runs in to a classic diffuse interest dilemma. And there are plenty of reasons not to give them free copies: first, because, as you say, there simply is no such entitlement. And more importantly, I think getting free games diminishes reviewer's perception of value, i.e. very expensive games are scored at the same pace as less expensive ones because to reviewers, they're all free.

 

[Takeda Kenshi]

Das ist nicht so gut.

 

[faceless007]

'Variety of tasks' factor into the pacing.

Pacing is a function of time, variety of tasks isn't. If you're arguing that the game didn't have anything interesting to do, that's still not an issue of pacing.

AC was an open-world game that had absolutely nothing in it except those shitty tasks.

Which, again, is not a complaint with pacing.

I don't disagree that AC had serious issues with its mission design and lack of things to actually do in the world. But I don't see what either of those has to do with pacing.

 

[faceless007]

Actually, I can come up with a possible reason: Ubisoft may want the industry they are a part of to gain wider legitimacy within society. By allowing the critical side of the industry to gain legitimacy, they help distance games from the puerile, fanboy sensibility that (I believe) many laymen perceive us as.

How does doing away with free review copies do that at all? Sending out review copies is the norm in books, music and movies and never come with strings. Even Transformers 2, which didn't have a hope of getting any positive reviews, was still screened for critics.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they're entitled to review copies. But I don't see how withholding them improves the industry's prestige.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Can we take this as proof positive that the game cannot garner a good review on its own? Guess we don't even have to read any reviews now, just add it to the do not want list.

 

[Dreamwriter]

So because you haven't heard of a German magazine (Are you familiar with ANY German magazines?), they are automatically lying? :lol

You haven't heard much about it because it's a German magazine. Regardless, the magazine has a large circulation in Germany. I'm continually astounded that people are still doubtful of how low some of these big game publishers can get in regards to assuring favourable reviews.

I've heard of some big magazines from other European countries...but I wasn't necessarily saying it was small, I was *asking* if it was, since I don't know how big or reliable it is. Doesn't even matter if it's popular, I know one UK magazine that's very popular, that lies, exaggerates, and even inserts incorrect statements into interviews (eg, the Wii Virtual Console will have EVERY NES game ever released at launch!) So I was asking if anyone knew if this was that sort of magazine.

My point was, we've got one website saying a magazine said that Ubisoft told them something. Yet everyone automatically assumes what they are reading is 100% true.

 

[mrkgoo]

The oddest part is that no-one cares that Ubisoft are even trying this (again), because it won't affect Ubisoft negatively. I'm getting to the point that game publishers can try whatever they want, because, except for poor reviews, hardly anything affects sales. Gamers don't have enough principles to over come their own desires to play a game if it's good.

 

[Terrordactyl]

Well to be fair, Assassin's Creed was horrible unless you're as easily entertained as a goldfish. Ubisoft likely had the same "give us a high score or be boycotted" policy back then too.

To really be fair the game was ambitious as fuck. It had a lot of great production but was ridden with repetitive gameplay and bugs. It had such a great scope though, and it was fun and I think a 6 is deserving if you think in terms of a 3 out of five and not ZOMG A 6 MIGHT AS WELL BE A 1.

 

[tahrikmili]

Sad, very sad, but welcome to my shitlist right beside EIDOS, Ubisoft.

Now I'll buy nothing from you unless missing it will emotionally scar me or something.

FOAD bitches.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Sad, very sad, but welcome to my shitlist right beside EIDOS, Ubisoft.

Now I'll buy nothing from you unless missing it will emotionally scar me or something.

FOAD bitches.

If the list you're making is for companies that withhold review copies over scoring issues, then I have a couple more you can add to your list, just from my brief few years as a journo.

Electronic Arts
Capcom
SCEA

 

[Slavik81]

If the list you're making is for companies that withhold review copies over scoring issues, then I have a couple more you can add to your list, just from my brief few years as a journo.

So his list is now:
Electronic Arts
Capcom
Sony
Eidos (Square Enix)
Ubisoft

Basically he's going Activision-exclusive?

 

[Costanza]

Can we take this as proof positive that the game cannot garner a good review on its own? Guess we don't even have to read any reviews now, just add it to the do not want list.

:lol

 

[tahrikmili]

If the list you're making is for companies that withhold review copies over scoring issues, then I have a couple more you can add to your list, just from my brief few years as a journo.

Electronic Arts
Capcom
SCEA

EA have redeemed themselves with Mirror's Edge and Brütal Legend.

Capcom and SCEA - I don't buy games from (except Street Fighter. They simply develop nothing that appeals to me.) I didn't know they had this practice as well, thanks for letting me know.

 

[tahrikmili]

Basically he's going Activision-exclusive?

Well the only game I bought in the last six months is Dawn of War 2.

I'm actually getting sick of gaming more likely.

 

[Hellsing321]

The Problem with AC1 is that it was an open world game with nothing to do in it. There were vast stretches of land in between the cities for no other reason than to pad out the length of the game. When you got to a city the only thing there for you to do was work your way to completing the assassination. The cities had no personality, no character. They were literally just there so you had shit to climb on. It also suffered from Ubisoft's patented "copy and Paste" design philosophy, much like the recent PoP, and FC2. If the only thing they did for AC2 was give you more mission types to complete the assassination then they missed the point entirely.

 

[senahorse]

surely this surprises no one at this point.

Sadly no, the good thing is this. I no longer take reviews seriously, least of all the score attributed to it. I now try games that just look interesting to me and am much happier for it, playing games that I once would have dismissed because of its average score

 

[Nachkebia]

They all should apollogise for GTA iv first, it was like biggest fraud in gaming industry....

 

[AniHawk]

They all should apollogise for GTA iv first, it was like biggest fraud in gaming industry....

NO IT WAS THE BEST GAME EVER

 

[Nachkebia]

NO IT WAS THE BEST GAME EVER

I have seen you list of best 10 games.

 

[tahrikmili]

I have seen you list of best 10 games.

Show me it.

 

[Nachkebia]

Show me it.

Search it for.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

The "Bild" magazines are far from Small.

well since they have the bild newspaper in the back - they are independent, computer bild, is ideal for pc starters... computer bild foto/tv has quite good and honest tests and while computer bild spiele is made by pc-guys who have to play console games, and they are far from hip they are objektive and very critical.

you dont have to bend over if the most selling newspaper in germany backs you up...


edit----------

fuck i read "smart" and not "small"

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I shan't render opinion until the time it is proper for me to do so! I thought about maybe designing a complex, da Vinci-like code in this message that would reveal what I'm thinking, but I'm pretty tired.

:lol

 

[Althoran]

This is a shitty move from Ubisoft but I think this happens all the time. A lot of review scores start at 7 lately. Sure some reviewsites use the full 10 or 100 point scale but for most it seems too confusing.

 

[eggandI]

what? I don't see the problem.

Business as usual, right?









:lol

Pretty much. I don't see how anyone can be surprised by this. And please don't act like Ubi would be the only one to do this. Gamespot's 9s hold about as much water as famitsu's 39s.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I've heard of some big magazines from other European countries...but I wasn't necessarily saying it was small, I was *asking* if it was, since I don't know how big or reliable it is. Doesn't even matter if it's popular, I know one UK magazine that's very popular, that lies, exaggerates, and even inserts incorrect statements into interviews (eg, the Wii Virtual Console will have EVERY NES game ever released at launch!) So I was asking if anyone knew if this was that sort of magazine.

My point was, we've got one website saying a magazine said that Ubisoft told them something. Yet everyone automatically assumes what they are reading is 100% true.

Because there's a reliable history of this sort of thing happening, especially in the case of Ubisoft. And the credibility of the magazine is decent.

 

[Blablurn]

Computer Bild Spiele :lol :lol :lol

 

[faridmon]

I never ever cared about reviews, i may talk about them here and there, but it never affected my buying decision. if you look at my gaming library, few games have been graded 90+ and you know what, the lower a game is reviewed, the more i think its up to my alley since the publishers and the developers spend much of the budget on the actual developing rather than bribing and most of the time marketing.

just watch gameplay videos and check some impression and you can know if the game is good or not.

 

[spats]

Surely crap like this is done all the time. I'm gonna end up buying ac2 at some point anyway. Ubi games drop in price like rocks. <3

 

[V_Arnold]

Unless Ubisoft completely revamps the game, reviews sites can just give a lower than 50% score accordingly to their score system. AC is by far the worst big budget game of this generation, I don't know how anything good can spawn of its sequel.

I feel so lucky not following hating-trends like these. Sometimes one gets a feeling that people are unable to accept the quality of something they are not really fond of.

It should be like "Oh, yeah. XX. Well, not my cup of tea, because I was not really into the basic style of gameplay and their art direction." Or something. Instead: WORST GAME OF 200X! But now, worst "big budget game of this generation". Really?

Why so serious? Why the need to exaggerate things? Is there anything beyond 1 and 0? (Surprise: in a numeral system higher than binary, there IS!)

 

[segasonic]

Well to be fair, you assholes talked insane amounts of shit about AC1.
Just because a fantastically made videogame had a repetitive structure doesn't mean that it got the deserved to be crucified.

Well, fuck you too, asshole.

AC1 sucked ass. It's so repetitive it isn't even worth being called a game, imho.

 

[Rezbit]

Obviously shady as fuck, but it's apparent this issue is rife in the gaming media right now. I just ignore reviews anyway; if I think it's a game that appeals to me I will seek it out.

 

[faceless007]

Well, fuck you too, asshole.

AC1 sucked ass. It's so repetitive it isn't even worth being called a game, imho.

If repetitiveness disqualifies something from being a game, Tetris is the most popular non-game ever.

 

[eggandI]

I never ever cared about reviews, i may talk about them here and there, but it never affected my buying decision. if you look at my gaming library, few games have been graded 90+ and you know what, the lower a game is reviewed, the more i think its up to my alley since the publishers and the developers spend much of the budget on the actual developing rather than bribing and most of the time marketing.

just watch gameplay videos and check some impression and you can know if the game is good or not.

Youtube is godlike for this. I have gotten so many PS2 games over the years that I would have otherwise never heard about because of youtube. And I find a lot of them to be more enjoyable than the "AAA" titles from the PS2 gen (and certainly more than the ones from this gen).

 

[GhaleonQ]

Youtube is godlike for this. I have gotten so many PS2 games over the years that I would have otherwise never heard about because of youtube. And I find a lot of them to be more enjoyable than the "AAA" titles from the PS2 gen (and certainly more than the ones from this gen).

*high-fives* I can barely recall choosing games before 2006 or so. Half of my game collection is due to Youtube fact-checking of gaming obscura name-checked by great websites.

...

...What were we talking about? Oh, yeah, Ubisoft is awful.

 

[segasonic]

If repetitiveness disqualifies something from being a game, Tetris is the most popular non-game ever.

lol, are you comparing one of the most ingenious game creations ever to AC? What the hell.

 

[tahrikmili]

If repetitiveness disqualifies something from being a game, Tetris is the most popular non-game ever.

The reason why Tetris can not be compared to Assassin's Creed is in your argument itself.

 

[Agalloch]

In before GTA4, Halo3, a lot of AAA titles, simply in this times don't follow too much reviews, specially from some mainstream sites and magazines, and don't look too much at the score, but read and look at screenshots if one title can fits for you.
Us old school gamers have learned to recognize a good title from a crappy screen of a magazine, tired of spending our money on bad games.

 

[Jocchan]

The reason why Tetris can not be compared to Assassin's Creed is in your argument itself.

Do you really believe Tetris is a non-game now? Oh God, what has marketing done to this generation?

 

[Deleted member 30609]

this thread just got retarded interesting

tetris = non-game? :lol

 

[Jocchan]

this thread just got retarded interesting

tetris = non-game? :lol

My friend, I think this thread has the potential to get AWESOME.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Tetris, by GAF definitions, is totally a non-game.

1) Sells well
2) Massive casual penetration
3) Super-simplistic