Ah, I misunderstood that last sentence then.

^I think 8.5/10 is rather high for a game that is more topping than ice cream. I believe it's not very objective of you, either. I also disregard ALMOST all "videogame specialized media" as trusty reviewers. My opinion is they barely play the games before they write about them. I highly doubt they even finish many of them. If you were to break an AC review down IGN style I think you'd be hard-pressed to give it more than 7 for gameplay and more than 6 for replay value. Presentation could go as high as 10, but the graphics and animation, although very good and beautiful indeed, they are practically the same throughout the whole game (very fitting to the overall repetitiveness of it), so I wouldn't score graphics higher than 8.5.

 My scores would be something like :  Presentation : 8, Graphics : 8.5  Gameplay: 5, Sound : 6, Lasting Appeal : 5. Overall 5/10

For me it was half a game, so I can't give it more than half the score. From the go it was flawed, and after a couple of missions you could see that everything Ubisoft did was "copy/paste" one level of design. Horrible story, no drama, repetitive even to the very last detail (gameplay or not), primitive AI, linear gameplay (not exactly a bad thing in itself, but the way you do it always repeating the same kind of thing is absurd). There's no real planning of the assasinations, you don't do anything different or motivated to do it any other way, you can just force your way through the crowd and kill the target admist all the chaos), the game has NO ENDING. Final boss (predictable from half the game at least, he was the bad guy). This assasin never disguises himself, never goes INDOORS, never attacks at night, he instead goes around saving citizens (?) The whole "sync" system is flawed too. You can attract attention easier just by running around town near some guards than actually pushing around and KILLING of those preachers you always have to interrogate, again and again. Dude, I could go on and peel the skin of my fingers off typing it all. But it would just get repetitive. Anyway, kudos for Ubisoft 'cause they didn't play it safe and made a beautiful stage that has a lot of potential to be exploited in possible sequels. But this one sucks.

I guess the 'witty' comebacks, quick loss of respect and blatant disregard for facts is still the way to go for some people. Oh and Im sorry I posted on a public forum, ....oh wait Im not.

I even started off by agreeing with you. I am more than happy to hear your thoughts (and Im sure rocketpig is to) and discuss the reasons for your 50 score, but I guess you charge money for your acclaimed reviews... dont worry Im not holding my breath anymore and you got your wish, Im leaving this thread.

See, I have problems with IGN-style reviews. They talk up "lasting appeal" when that's not necessary for all titles... Gears needs a high replayability factor while a MGS or AC does not. It needs the MP because that's expected in FPS games and the campaign itself is brutally short. Some of my other problems are vague terms like "presentation". WTF does that even mean? They have graphics as another category so that's not it... Is it art style? Is there more to it than that?

I hate the idea of breaking a game, or any other art, into numbers and I doubly hate the idea of breaking those numbers into smaller categorized numbers. Personally, I would love to see a site that just talked about the game, described the good and bad, weighed the options, and then left it up to the reader to decide if that title is right or wrong for them. Then again, people are stupid and hate to read so that site would probably never succeed.

The wide range of AC's scores shows it to be a love it or hate it title. Some hated it for its flaws while others forgave some of those flaws and looked toward some of the amazing things the game achieved. It's really dependent on how you view games and gaming, I guess.

^I made an update for my previous post.

yeah, I agree IGN's breakdown is vague. Sorry I used it. I just wanted to point out gameplay is the weakest point of the game. I'm with you, some games are pure gameplay, and even some of them are more story than anything else (many point and click adventures, for example).

major problem for XBOX360, wish microsoft fixed it 100% after Jasper comes to the shelves...

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I've had my 360 since 2006 and its not a falcon and its never red ringed. Guess I got the xbox 360 holy grail edition.

^you should stop playing it. I would. I would put it inside a glass case and maybe in 20 years it'll sell for 50K on ebay...or maybe not... :)

Dang, Rocketpig ... where's your backup Starcraft? All Rocketpig, all the time!

You and Mr. Stickball speaketh tha truth!

"I don't think there is such a thing as a "perfect game". Portal is about as close as it comes IMO and that game had the luxury of being only three hours long. It's a lot harder to make a full-featured title sustain that kind of greatness over 7-20 hours.

My point is that the PS3 has yet to receive one amazing title. Then again, IMO the 360 only has Gears and Mass Effect while the Wii only has SMG. Those are really the only "great" games I have played this generation. I've played a lot of very good or good titles, but few really impressed me overall.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, I'm pretty brutal on some games people love. "

Thanks for clearing that up rocket, now i agree with you. However, you surely must revise your statement and position now that the competition only has 3 amazing games. It is a pretty close war with nobody clearly in the lead i feel. Therer are just too many things involved.

360 has great lineup, sucky hardware

ps3 has great hardware, less than robust gaming

wii has a huge audience and fun games, but also short games and gimmicky