http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/assassinscreed2/review.html?tag=quicklinks;reviews

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/assassinscreed2

The first Assassin's Creed's charm was in the sumptuous graphics and straightforward action - that incredible climbing and free-running, and the visceral thrill of stapling evil people to the dirt with a wristblade. With AC2 the rest of the game has caught up with the brilliance of those central ideas to create a complete and coherent experience. We can think of plenty of words that could describe Assassin's Creed 2 - involving, exciting, cinematic - but there's only one word that sums it up beautifully. Killer. [Dec 2009, p.74, via Metacritics/Gamespot.com]

Well the full review doesn't seem to be up yet but at least we know the score.

The US Official PlayStation Magazine gave it 5/5.

Ah looks like N4G.com let me down again and metacritic.com as well.

So you were let down because...

Because I thought N4G.com was right when they said ""First Assassins Creed 2 Review Score""

http://www.n4g.com/News-421237.aspx

Hatmoza and nen-seur will be pleased(I think).

I think Gamespot gave one of the higher scores to the original game, they were big fans.

I'm not saying that the game won't be great but because the first game received somewhat mixed reviews (with Gamespot at the higher end of that) I'm keen to see some more scores before I get excited.

Also what made Assassin's Creed 1 be utter trassh despite what it did well was how utterly repetative it was....

Actually they were right; OXM was the first publication to have the game reviewed.

But since OPM, OXM, and ONM are all from Future publishing, the release date for all these magazines are around the same time.

Anyway, the first review I actually saw was the UK Official PlayStation Magazine, they gave it a 9 out of 10, but Metacritic hasn't added that review yet.

Yeah I guess that's where my confusion came from. Thanks for clearing that up.