I can agree with that somewhat. I am awfully hard on games. But there are several that I enjoyed, despite niggling problems they may have had. Mass Effect was a very good game, possibly even great. It was borderline and I was able to look past most of the technical problems and really get into the game itself, though I fully acknowledge that those problems were there and that they were annoying as hell at points.

Portal, on the other hand, was as close to perfection as possible for a three hour game. Pretty much anything from Valve nears perfection IMO. They're true masters of the genre.

But I won't overlook repetitive gameplay (Heavenly Sword) and I won't let a game slide for being completely unoriginal (Uncharted). They're both good games but I won't lower my bar just to make fanboys feel a little bit better about their console at the end of the day. The same goes for Halo. I think Bungie is a fantastic developer and some of the stuff they put in the game (Forge, Theatre) really move the online console FPS genre forward. The campaign, on the other hand, was decent. That's it. The co-op was brilliant but overall, the campaign had some pretty weak moments (level 9, for example) and some others that really stood out in my mind (the Scarab(s) battle, the flying level). Overall, pretty good but not great, at least in my eyes. I think Gears was a better game overall.

I just don't understand why people will defend Uncharted as being so great. It basically straight ripped the cover mechanic from Gears and GRAW, except ND didn't bother to implement it as well as either. The story is a straight rip from an Indiana Jones movie and while it's fun, it's extremely predictable until the end, which was just flat-out stupid. The gameplay was horribly repetitive (enter area, clear area, move on) and the enemies, which were a simple group of bad guys going for money, later switched over to fucking zombie nazis. WEAK. The end boss battle was pathetic (Mass Effect, now that had an epic boss battle) and the jet ski segments were inane. Gee, let's randomly throw in water segments where you have to dodge exploding barrels in the water. Lame. It's not a bad game but with so many obvious faults, it can't be considered great in any way, shape, or form.

As for Heavenly Sword, it was too short. Waaaaay too short. The voice acting was amazing (gotta love Andy Serkis) and the storyline didn't make me want to rip my hair out. The characters were intriguing and the AfterTouch system was fucking awesome. That's where the praise ends for me. The combat was extremely repetitive, throwing hats at gongs to progress through the game was stupid, and other than the massive end battle, most of the actual gameplay (excluding Aftertouch segments) felt really uninspired. Just an hour or so into the game, I didn't want to play as Nariko (sp?) anymore. Kai was way more fun and every time I got back to Nariko, I groaned a little.

^I know this is very off-topic, but since everyone is off-topic already anyway, I'd like to know your opinion about Assassin's Creed, and if possible your score in a scale of 10.

 edit: hell, I'm assuming you played the game....now, did you? XD

I really liked Assassin's Creed. The gameplay was incredibly redundant but so much of the game was done right that I'll give it a bit of a pass.

The arms/legs control was incredible and the attention to detail in a completely underutilized game world (medieval Middle East) was absolutely breath-taking and the climbing mechanic still had me amazed 10 hours into the game. The actual assassinations were fun and the myriad of ways you could approach the situation was encouraging if you failed one or two times. You always had another way of getting the job done. Running across rooftops during the chase sequences were always exhilarating and had you on your toes.

Now for the bad.

The story had an interesting twist but they revealed it 20 minutes into the game. Ugh. And after the first 20 minutes of play, you walked around like some frat boy toolbox for 45 minutes and listened to some crazy dude and a shitty computerized version of Kristen Bell blather on and on about stuff you didn't give a rat's ass about. It also sucked that a stealth game suddenly went all John Rambo, Medieval Edition for the last hour of gameplay.

The enemies... Seriously, Ubisoft. You gotta try harder than that. There's only so many times I rescue the same chick with the same voice before I just want to knife her. The beggars were even more annoying than the enemies and actually caused me more problems than the guards I was trying to avoid most of the game.

Overall, a pretty good game that was hugely flawed, much like how I view Uncharted (though I think Assassin's Creed had a lot more potential and was a lot more imaginative). I would probably give the game an 8.5/10 or so (versus an 8/10 for Uncharted for your comparison).

^Ok. I lost any respect for your opinions :P


But now, seriously. I think it always comes down to a matter of opinion. See, you were willing to forgive AC's faults just a little more than you were with Uncharted. A number of variables may influence this, and you explained some of them, but it's still subjective of course. Sometimes we are overhyped for a game, or we overexpect and then even if the game is a masterpiece we are left disappointed. It happens with everything.


But that was not the case for me with AC, I assure you. Sometimes it's a matter of the type of game we're most eager to play, or if a game is different enough from the games we've saturated ourselves at a given time and we might recieve it better than if it was in direct competition with other titles in the same genre.

I think Assasin's Creed had a lot of hype. Lots. Coming from a strong E3 showing, produced by Ubisoft, makers of Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell, how can an "assasin" game with these credentials not be hyped?

Overall, I think if you read your comments again you'll see the flaws you point out overweigh the goods, and still you appreciated this "hugely flawed" game very much. I'm sure if a game like Gears of War 2 (or any other game you'd expect to be "great" 9+ ) were to exhibit the same level of gameplay quility AC offers you would be a lot more severe on it. Or probably not.

For comparison's sake, I think Uncharted deserves an 8/10. Assasin's Creed gets a 5. Thanks for your reply.

And I think you're insane for giving a game with so much potential, much of which was well-executed, a 5. That's the thing about opinions... I don't lose respect for yours, I simply disagree with it.

Assassin's Creed shot for the moon and failed to deliver in many respects. I'll give them a bit of credit because the gameplay mechanics were inventive and the world was incredible. I'm also a sucker for open world games. Whereas Uncharted played it safe, copied several other popular games, and delivered a decent experience, though uninspired IMO.

As for hype, I don't see why that's even in this conversation. I play a game and form my own opinion. I'll let the fanboys and tards ramp their expectations to the point of demanding the game deliver the Second Coming of Christ, I'll just wait for it to release and judge it on its own merits.

Besides, you probably played the "broken" version of the game on the PS3. I played it on the 360, which by all accounts was a vastly superior experience. Depending on what problems you had with the game, that could factor into your score heavily.

To add something, I will give a game a lot more leeway if it introduces new features over a game that aims to be everything for everyone.

For example, Psychonauts has its issues compared to a game like Ratchet & Clank. But since Tim Schafer tried to create something special and really succeeded in some regards, I'm willing to forgive some of the gameplay and technical issues with the title. Ratchet & Clank, a decent but middling platform in its own right, has a few less issues but since there is nothing truly extraordinary there, gets knocked down harder for its own faults.

Or Mass Effect vs. Oblivion... Bethesda tried to be everything to everyone and ended up with a completely mediocre game overall. It had some good ideas and implemented a few of them well, but when compared to Mass Effect and its amazing dialogue system and its cinematic take on gaming, Oblivion will get knocked down a notch for its mistakes (of which there are many) while Mass Effect gets a bit of a pass for its textures and completely bland non-story world environments.

Dude, rocketpig you should be a game reviewer somewhere, that was a good read and you nailed the pros and cons well (coming from someone who just recently played it).

@maginfic0
Its always a matter of opinion, but given that 76 critics from around the world (whose jobs and livelihoods depends on the credibility and truth of their reviews) gave it an average of 81, and that rocketpig practically nailed the pros and cons in detail, his 85 looks way more credible than your 50. Looking back at your post, you didnt even provide much in terms of critique of the game anyway to justify your score.

@rocketpig

broken PS3 version? what?

You also said:

"I played it on the 360, which by all accounts was a vastly superior experience"

Now degrading yourself to fanboy talk?


@EaglesEye379

I was not reviewing AC, and this conversation is not with you either. Yes, I'm rude.

rocket i think that what you are saying is that there aren't any perfect games on the ps3. Which I will agree with. However, I don't see any on the 360 either. Just try to understand how hard it is for a studio to have all this pressure to release a blockbuster game, and yet get slaughtered by critics and gamers for not taking enough chances.
It isn't an easy thing to be original. Sometimes, If you come up with a great idea it has probably already been implemented yaknow?

Thanks. I have written several reviews in the past but lately, my job has prevented me from spending too much time writing. I hardly have enough time to play games much less write about them (other than this forum setting).