PDA

View Full Version : Handicap Revelations Review Score.... Ubisoft, take note.



luckyto
10-24-2011, 10:24 AM
IGN just came out and gave Uncharted 3 a 10. A 10. This almost never happens. But Naughty Dogg spent two years in production on the sequel, and they've managed to focus on refining core gameplay mechanics from release to release VS adding more and more. That's a good formula for a franchise.

AC2 saw a huge jump in its review scores, whereas ACB's overall score dropped slightly (depending on console). Where will Revelations score?

My metacritic score handicap for Revelations looks to be about 87. That's my guess. But I may be way wrong, maybe they've refined the experimentation in Brotherhood and delivered a truly remarkable game. I'm hoping. What do you think?

thekarlone
10-24-2011, 10:39 AM
The 10 are at market price.

LightRey
10-24-2011, 10:51 AM
I think I don't care about reviews.

The-Auditore
10-24-2011, 11:25 AM
IGNorant don't really give good reviews at all, I don't want to bash other games, but they gave Black Ops (An unbalanced game with major connection flaws and don't even make me give a huge rant on it.) an 8.5, compared to AC:B's flawless Campaign (Yeah, there's a few minor bugs like guards inside houses.) and a really fun multi player (Ok, Templar Vision is a bit annoying, but it's their first Multi player, compared to Treyarch's second, along with IW's)

I don't wanna' bash other games, but they're very biased.

Either way, I don't care about anyone's review apart from mine and my friend's. I love AC and think that the game series is awesome.

EscoBlades
10-24-2011, 11:40 AM
Sorry but Uncharted 3 is NOT a 10. I'm no big shot reviewer, but i know a pay off when i see one. IGN generally don't give reliable reviews anyway. In fact, those of us in games journalism know to take IGN reviews with a heavy dose of salt.

Eurogamer's UC3 review was more on the mark.

Grandmaster_Z
10-24-2011, 11:47 AM
screw reviews

luckyto
10-24-2011, 11:48 AM
Oh, IGN's reviews are DEFINITELY up for $ale! I look at MetaCritic --- which looks at all reviews and averages them out.

That wasn't really so much the point as a conversation starter; what do people think Revelations will score? (Obviously, if you don't care to guess then this thread is not for you.) Will it do better than ACB or AC2? Or what?

Since we have no new news and the same speculation for the 1000th time, why not guess... it's like picking "how many jellybeans are in this jar"; you guess just for the fun of guessing...

EscoBlades
10-24-2011, 11:56 AM
I think someone already started a thread like that....i can't check right now.

Also, as i will be reviewing the game, i don't think it would be right of me to engage in such prior to embargoes lifting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

RzaRecta357
10-24-2011, 11:57 AM
How is Uncharted not a 10? Have you previewed it? I know you might have since you do that stuff haha.

But I keep reading how they chain the events together so well now that you don't even see the ties sometimes. Which sounds awesome.

I mean, ACR is basically ripping this idea off and calling it "Production quality".

The-Auditore
10-24-2011, 12:00 PM
To answer the question, they'll probably give it a 7.5 because it's "The same as before" whereas CoD will get a 9.5 because it has a few new things...

luckyto
10-24-2011, 12:00 PM
Uncharted 2 was pretty close to a 10, in my mind. I prefer Assassin's Creed games because of the style, but it was a frikkin awesome game. I'd love to see an AC game that broke the 9.5 barrier...

EscoBlades
10-24-2011, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
How is Uncharted not a 10? Have you previewed it? I know you might have since you do that stuff haha.

But I keep reading how they chain the events together so well now that you don't even see the ties sometimes. Which sounds awesome.

I mean, ACR is basically ripping this idea off and calling it "Production quality".

Until it is patched, the MP is rather "broken". The obtuse platforming mechanics from Uncharted 2 are still present. And it is still a fairly linear affair (although not everyone will see this as a bad thing)

thekarlone
10-24-2011, 12:11 PM
For me:
Uncharted 3 multiplayer: regular, some things are boring and poor, other cool.
Uncharted 3 story mode: good enough.
Uncharted 3 plot: excellent.

Then, it would be something like 8.5, not a 10.

RzaRecta357
10-24-2011, 12:12 PM
Yeah I wasn't thinking of multiplayer. Although I'm starting to think after todays reviews of Battlefield 3 that they should start judging MP and SP of games seperately.

It would help with most games having MP now and some games just having a tacked on version of something.

Also, I'll totally agree that the platforming looks really cheesy in the way he does it as opposed to something like AC. But were AC nerds so we notice this heavily.

But Uncharted is supposed to be linear and have lots of cool set pieces like an action movie or Indiana Jones...so I always judge them on that and enjoy myself.

Still, now that you have me thinking..I don't think it does deserve a 10. GTAIV deserved a 10, with it's amazing new tech and take on the series. This is just Uncharted 2 ramped up with explosions probably.

A review I read on Kotaku or Joystiq mentioned the characters don't get much deeper since the second game but are still written really well.

luckyto
10-24-2011, 12:26 PM
And it is still a fairly linear affair

Yeah, it is very linear - by design. And it works. I tend to score based on how well someone does what they are trying to do (shooter, adventure, sandbox, etc.) I wish everyone did.

Though, I prefer non-linear games MUCH MUCH more; and thus Assassin's Creed.

To me, the biggest faults with Uncharted are controls that feel clunky at times. Play AC for a few hours and then hop on Uncharted and the difference is jarring. AC is very well controlled. I never understood how Uncharted gets away with clunky controls when a game like Tomb Raider gets knocked for it, but Uncharted's platforming is much easier and never punishes you for its shortcomings.

and the games are a little short.... comparatively.


Still, for what they are trying to design -- a 10-hour interactive movie blockbuster -- it is very impressive. They do stick to what they do, and they do it very very well.


AC is a large open-world. How well will they do it? I think Constantinople will be their greatest city yet. But will it be enough.


PS GTA IV did not deserve 10. It's controls seem even more clunky than Uncharted, but maybe AC has just spoiled me rotten.

RzaRecta357
10-24-2011, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And it is still a fairly linear affair

Yeah, it is very linear - by design. And it works. I tend to score based on how well someone does what they are trying to do (shooter, adventure, sandbox, etc.) I wish everyone did.

Though, I prefer non-linear games MUCH MUCH more; and thus Assassin's Creed.

To me, the biggest faults with Uncharted are controls that feel clunky at times. Play AC for a few hours and then hop on Uncharted and the difference is jarring. AC is very well controlled. I never understood how Uncharted gets away with clunky controls when a game like Tomb Raider gets knocked for it, but Uncharted's platforming is much easier and never punishes you for its shortcomings.

and the games are a little short.... comparatively.


Still, for what they are trying to design -- a 10-hour interactive movie blockbuster -- it is very impressive. They do stick to what they do, and they do it very very well.


AC is a large open-world. How well will they do it? I think Constantinople will be their greatest city yet. But will it be enough.


PS GTA IV did not deserve 10. It's controls seem even more clunky than Uncharted, but maybe AC has just spoiled me rotten. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you call clunky on GTA was just them adding weight and real physics. Unlike Uncharted which is "Floaty".

GTA totally deserved a 10. It deserved more than that. Most people think oh my god no planes no tanks it's no good anymore.

They have a story which isn't about one man. It's about the lives of three people being changed by diamonds and cursed heroin when they cross paths or just go about their lives. Lives that are lived and thought about totally different.

Then there is the city. An amazingly detailed city with such diverse citizens you could hear everything from Asian languages to people answering their phone in german.

The wanted system was amazing. Sometimes you'd get caught instantly because people have cellphones and other times you could escape and not have the cops arrive to that area for 2 minutes. You could steal a car and leave it at the front of an alley then hide behind a dumpster only to have the cops set up a parameter around the car and run right by you because you hiding manhunt style.

Then there is the euphoria system which you call clunky but really it just adds the most realistic physics and weight to any game. It doesn't have set animations either.

The pedestrians actually try to catch themselves and stick their arms out. If you try to drive over them slowly they will try to hold onto your hood.

There is so much to it, it's truly amazing. Red Dead Redemption only refines and takes this further.

Anyway, sorry for the big GTA rant. But people always say that it didn't deserve a ten because they didn't like the lack of craziness. But what they did is truly amazing.

Speaking of craziness. Saints Row 3 comes out the same day as Skyrim and ACR. That sucks. Gonna have to get Skyrim on PC and ACR on the same day and hold off on SR3 for a bit.

LightRey
10-24-2011, 12:38 PM
GTA IV was ok. It was just kind of a letdown compared to GTA SA. It certainly wasn't worth a 10. The environment was dull and the feel was the same everywhere. The story was ok (not that I'd expect more from GTA).

luckyto
10-24-2011, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by RzaRecta357:

There is so much to it, it's truly amazing. Red Dead Redemption only refines and takes this further.

Anyway, sorry for the big GTA rant. But people always say that it didn't deserve a ten because they didn't like the lack of craziness. But what they did is truly amazing.

No worries. I like hearing people's take on games. That's why I read reviews. Sometimes, people have interesting angles which are worth taking in. To be fair, I never got very far with GTAIV. I played about 3 hours and couldn't get past the controls, and ended up putting AC back in and never looked back. But that's me, if a game can't suck me in; then I can't commit to it. Maybe I should give it another shot.

Red Dead is a different matter entirely. Controller customization allowed me to find a natural feel and I was off and running for two play-throughs back-to-back... and it is one of my all-time favorite games to this day.

Still, I think I'd rather run about with Altair or Ezio any day of the week. To me, the AC games are better even though they are strikingly different between each release. The character controls so smoothly and organically that movement in the environment comes natural - yet is still challenging to master. I still don't understand how GTAIV could score more than AC2.

RzaRecta357
10-24-2011, 12:59 PM
See, Red Dead and GTAIV were essentially the same just in different time periods and Red Dead took the bad complaints of not enough to do in the world into consideration. But you liked the way it feeled. That's the euphoria. You can feel the weight which I think is amazing.

But I totally agree with you on AC. Like most people here...It's my game. I love the way it feels. I can control it so precise it's insane and can pick up the newest one and FLY through the parkour and movements.

I also would choose AC over GTA. But I still think GTA deserves a ten. Even the sound of that game was amazing in tunnels and things like that.

But AC2, should of scored a ten too. The changes and cities were amazing. (Even though I still think AC1 is the best.) The games soundtrack was even amazing.

This is why I don't really trust reviewers. I mean, look at LightRey above. Had he told me what he thought of GTAIV I would of never played one of my favourite games to date. He must not enjoy the feel of modern New york style games because it was captured so perfectly with it's diversity in different areas and they actually took time to detail different stores and what have you.

Also, if you only played GTAIV and not it's expansions you didn't actually experience the full story. Another thing that is amazing. Niko doesn't get to kill his biggest enemy. Another character does. Just the way the world works. None cliche.

I don't even know what the reviews for any of the AC games are. I always just get em. I remember playing AC1 and enjoying it but kind of letting it pass by. Read the reviews and thought "meh". But then I just randomly thought about the cool ending one day and decided to play it again. I love that game...and it's probably the worst rated of the three out so far.

luckyto
10-24-2011, 01:11 PM
Reviews sometimes tip me off to games I wouldn't otherwise try. I would have never tried AC if I hadn't read a few well-written reviews which convinced me otherwise.... and I'm so glad I did, it's my favorite game in the collection and way way underrated. Critics didn't score it for what it tried to do, but on what they thought it should be. Maybe your review will entice me to give GTA another go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I just like hearing people's take on things. I certainly don't look to any one place for buying advice, nor do I ever care to have validation for games I already like... (Tomb Raider is one of my guilty pleasures.)

Often though, I do wonder why one game gets a pass in one area that another game is hammered for. And really, I hate reviews of sequels, because way too much emphasis is placed on change... (why change something which works).

MostJadedGamer
10-24-2011, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
IGN just came out and gave Uncharted 3 a 10. A 10. This almost never happens. But Naughty Dogg spent two years in production on the sequel, and they've managed to focus on refining core gameplay mechanics from release to release VS adding more and more. That's a good formula for a franchise.

Uncharted 3 has a lower Metacritic score then Uncharted 2. Uncharted 2 averaged a 96 while Uncharted 3 is only averaging a 94.


AC2 saw a huge jump in its review scores, whereas ACB's overall score dropped slightly (depending on console).

They ONLY dropped a single point for each console which is LESS then then the drop from Uncharted 2 to Uncharted 3

PS3- AC2- 91
PS3- Brotherhood- 90
360- AC2- 90
360- Brotherhood- 89



Where will Revelations score?

I think Revelations will edge out AC2 as the highest scoring AC game.

Anyway this thread is full of misleading facts. Uncharted 3 had a bigger drop from Uncharted 2 then Brotherhood had from AC2.

Animuses
10-24-2011, 01:37 PM
IGN gave Uncharted 3 a 10? It looks like the same game as Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 2 was the same thing as Uncharted.

Overrated crap if you ask me.

iN3krO
10-24-2011, 01:52 PM
Why God? Why Minerva? Why Juno? Why TWCB?

Why ppl only understood that Ac1 was better when it's already to late for ubisoft to go back to that nostalgic feel? :$

GTA IV was, for me, the best GTA. GTA SA was just too unrealistic.

I feel nostalgic when thinking about Ac1 :$

PS: I would score:

Ac1 - 8.5
Ac2 - 9
AcB - 7.5

For me a 10 would be a good mix of Ac1 and Ac2 with features of AcB after some revisions to balance it (better). Better is with () cuz it's not balanced at all!

luckyto
10-24-2011, 01:52 PM
Anyway this thread is full of misleading facts. Uncharted 3 had a bigger drop from Uncharted 2 then Brotherhood had from AC2.

Ummm... misleading... not.

1) Not all of Uncharted 3's scores are in, so don't count your chickens yet.
2) I only mentioned IGN's score as a conservation starter, as it is accurate, current and rare that they ever give a 10 to anything.
3) AC2 was a big jump from AC1's scores and ACB's score did "drop slightly" from AC2. Slightly means only a small amount, or trivial. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slightly

Separately, I think it is worth noting though, that while many complain that games like COD or Uncharted change very little from release to release, they still manage to score very high because they perfect what they do right, rather than change it. How does this formula relate to other franchises? It's an interesting topic worth discussing, and one discussed on this forum many times.



S: I would score:

Ac1 - 8.8
Ac2 - 9.1
AcB - 8.1

ACR - 9.3 ???

kriegerdesgottes
10-24-2011, 02:02 PM
Keep in mind the incredible biases of IGN which are great especially when it comes to Uncharted or Call of Duty. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Jexx21
10-24-2011, 02:04 PM
If you rate ACB an 8.1, be prepared to rate ACR a 8.3 or raise your opinion of ACB.

All the hate for ACB is completely unjustified.

Anyway, the metacritic score for the AC games increased with each iteration so far.

AC1- 79
AC2- 86
ACB- 88

I'm expecting ACR to be a 90.

My personal scores are 80, 90, 92.

Animuses
10-24-2011, 02:06 PM
@luckyto
I disagree, I think sequels should always change. If it doesn't change, isn't just the same game with a different story? I want a new experience, not the same one.

My scores:
AC - 88
AC2 - 96
ACB - 81

My guess for ACR would possibly be a range from 86-92.


Originally posted by Jexx21:
All the hate for ACB is completely unjustified.
Not really. It's been justified many times, you're opinions just differ.


Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
Keep in mind the incredible biases of IGN which are great especially when it comes to Uncharted or Call of Duty. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I completely agree.

luckyto
10-24-2011, 02:09 PM
On the PS3, AC2 was a 91 but an 86 on PC. Brotherhood was a 90 on PS3 and an 88 on PC. It gets slightly confusing when talking about different consoles.

---
@Animuses...

See, I just want more. I would buy AC1 all over again with the exact same maps and new objectives and a few added bonuses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jexx21
10-24-2011, 02:12 PM
It honestly isn't justified if you give ACB an 81 and then give AC2 a 96.

They are not 15 points apart, they are barely 5 points apart.

Say all you want about not liking the city or the length of the story as much, it doesn't justify a 15 point drop in rating. It makes it look like you are being paid to down-rate the game.

Animuses
10-24-2011, 02:16 PM
Did I state that I was the one to justify the reasons for finding Brotherhood mediocre? No.

If you think those are my reasons for finding Brotherhood mediocre then you are wrong.

Jexx21
10-24-2011, 02:20 PM
Honest to god, I can't see any reason at all to think of AC2 and ACB so differently. And I never said that I thought you were the only one that thought that!

I know that people have different reasons, but I used the ones I see the most often. You can tell me the reasons you have for thinking ACB isn't even as good as AC1 and a lot worse than AC2 if you want though.

Animuses
10-24-2011, 02:25 PM
If you want to talk to me about in pm then I'll explain myself, but honestly I'd rather not.

Regardless of all the problems I think it has, it's still a fun game and I'm still playing it because of that reason.

Jexx21
10-24-2011, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:

See, I just want more. I would buy AC1 all over again with the exact same maps and new objectives and a few added bonuses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If they tweaked the combat system and changed the engine to the ACR engine (which would actually require them to redesign the cities and the kingdom Dhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would too.

luckyto
10-24-2011, 02:35 PM
I wouldn't want the guard types of ACB in AC1 (or the notoriety system). I prefer the skill level system of guards in AC1. One of my biggest complaints with ACB (and I expect ACR) is that you are pigeon-holed into how to melee attack certain guards. For that reason, AC1's combat still feels the most dynamic, free flowing and unpredictable to me.

Chain kills, yes. But nothing else.

If they just gave the NPC citizenry of AC1 the same level of detail as ACB, I'd buy it again. That's perhaps the most brilliant work in ACB. I pray for Anniversary edition one day on the next generation of consoles.

iN3krO
10-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luckyto:

See, I just want more. I would buy AC1 all over again with the exact same maps and new objectives and a few added bonuses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If they tweaked the combat system and changed the engine to the ACR engine (which would actually require them to redesign the cities and the kingdom Dhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you mean by tweaking make it as ****ty as in acB then i would not buy it. If you mean to add balanced killstreaks (requiring skill to press attack button in the perfect timmings) and smoth "bridges" between actions then i'm all for it!

Also, notoriety system of Ac1 was much better. It differed city guards, templars guards and patrols much better then ac2 and acB did :$

Jexx21
10-24-2011, 02:45 PM
I don't see how AC1 and ACB are different in that regard. Actually, the one thing I don't like about ACB's combat and wish they kept it the same as AC2 is the stunning trick where you kick the guy in between the legs. I would of rather kept it as the jump back option. But to me, ACB's combat is still the most fluid. AC2's is the most unpredictable though, snd I pretty much knew what the guards were going to do in AC1, except when they grabbed you. That WAS unpredicatble. :P

But I don't really see how you are pigeon holed into how to melee attack the guards in ACB.

Can you explain?

LightRey
10-24-2011, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luckyto:

See, I just want more. I would buy AC1 all over again with the exact same maps and new objectives and a few added bonuses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If they tweaked the combat system and changed the engine to the ACR engine (which would actually require them to redesign the cities and the kingdom Dhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you mean by tweaking make it as ****ty as in acB then i would not buy it. If you mean to add balanced killstreaks (requiring skill to press attack button in the perfect timmings) and smoth "bridges" between actions then i'm all for it!

Also, notoriety system of Ac1 was much better. It differed city guards, templars guards and patrols much better then ac2 and acB did :$ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
AC2 actually had an instant kill move that worked on all attacks that could be blocked with any enemy.

AC1 didn't have a notoriety system, it just had guards notice bodies, leading to them becoming alerted and guards that were always on alert.

iN3krO
10-24-2011, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luckyto:

See, I just want more. I would buy AC1 all over again with the exact same maps and new objectives and a few added bonuses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If they tweaked the combat system and changed the engine to the ACR engine (which would actually require them to redesign the cities and the kingdom Dhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you mean by tweaking make it as ****ty as in acB then i would not buy it. If you mean to add balanced killstreaks (requiring skill to press attack button in the perfect timmings) and smoth "bridges" between actions then i'm all for it!

Also, notoriety system of Ac1 was much better. It differed city guards, templars guards and patrols much better then ac2 and acB did :$ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
AC2 actually had an instant kill move that worked on all attacks that could be blocked with any enemy.

AC1 didn't have a notoriety system, it just had guards notice bodies, leading to them becoming alerted and guards that were always on alert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, ok, so at start no guard notices u are in the city and after you kill 7 templars there are patrols all over the city and some normal guards that notices you are there if you do some strange moves....

It wasn't as clear as in Ac2/B but it still was a notorious system, it might be a little lineal on how you advance in story but i think that if they work better in Ac2 notorious system with levels and other ways to get more notorious and lose it and use the "notorious behavior" of Ac1 for both guards and citzens then it would be perfect (2 months ago i stated how it would work but i was just to large and i don't want to writte everything again).

Animuses
10-24-2011, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I don't see how AC1 and ACB are different in that regard. Actually, the one thing I don't like about ACB's combat and wish they kept it the same as AC2 is the stunning trick where you kick the guy in between the legs. I would of rather kept it as the jump back option. But to me, ACB's combat is still the most fluid. AC2's is the most unpredictable though, snd I pretty much knew what the guards were going to do in AC1, except when they grabbed you. That WAS unpredicatble. :P

I definitely agree.


The main problem with combat in AC is the AI.

In AC, the guards were predictable and got distracted way too easily.

In AC2, the guards would sometimes take forever to attack and you couldn't get attacked while killing a guard.

ACB fixed what was wrong with AC2, but added a lot of annoying moves for the AI. The CONSTANT sand throwing and grabbing were ridiculously annoying, so were the guards on horseback and crossbowmen/gunmen.

LightRey
10-24-2011, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Yeah, ok, so at start no guard notices u are in the city and after you kill 7 templars there are patrols all over the city and some normal guards that notices you are there if you do some strange moves....

It wasn't as clear as in Ac2/B but it still was a notorious system, it might be a little lineal on how you advance in story but i think that if they work better in Ac2 notorious system with levels and other ways to get more notorious and lose it and use the "notorious behavior" of Ac1 for both guards and citzens then it would be perfect (2 months ago i stated how it would work but i was just to large and i don't want to writte everything again).
It was a simulated notoriety system, not an actual one. The fact that guards noticed you more easily was simply because they added patrols with alerted guards after each set of assassinations.

luckyto
10-24-2011, 03:18 PM
"Jexx:
But I don't really see how you are pigeon holed into how to melee attack the guards in ACB.

Can you explain?

Brutes almost always need a kick and combo. Spear bearers, kick and combo or disarm. Agiles almost always need to be countered, as they dodge ALMOST every attack. This translates into very repetitive approach. I find myself doing the same thing with each type of guard over and over. Sure, I might hit an Agile with a straight attack once, but rarely, so why bother?

In AC1, any guard had some probability (from very low to high) of countering or grabbing you. As well, you could combo attack every single type of guard with the right timing. You could also counter every guard's attack with varying degrees of difficulty. The result is that when I play, I'm constantly moving from opponent to opponent regardless of guard skill level; attacking, blocking or countering as need be in real swordplay and reacting to the flow of the fight VS switching from one particular tactic to another based on guard type.

In AC1, I still find myself reacting to something unexpected. Sometimes, I'm an ACE and combo-kill the lot in a minute; sometimes, I'm finding myself thrown all over the place and punched in the gut. It's still fresh.

In ACB, I always know what to expect, "I'm going to kick this guy, I'm going to counter this one, etc." Just once I'd like to walk up to a Brute and just whack him a few times with my sword without having to kick the guy first. This translates into very very repetitive gameplay.

Chain-killing helps offset this, but it is a little too easy to start, and there aren't enough enemies (except in Virtual Training) to keep it going. The result is a very repetitive approach to battles. Get these guys this way, then these guys this way, and then these. And the next fight, follow same formula. Every time I try to deviate, the guard type system blocks me in my tracks and I'm pigeonholed right back into the same approach.

Screw it, just call in my hit girls.

sorry, off topic, but that's what I meant by guard types.



It was a simulated notoriety system, not an actual one. The fact that guards noticed you more easily was simply because they added patrols with alerted guards after each set of assassinations.


Guards did a better job of noticing you in AC1 than ACB. It may have been simulated, but if I stood there with a sword drawn, they noticed.

iN3krO
10-24-2011, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Yeah, ok, so at start no guard notices u are in the city and after you kill 7 templars there are patrols all over the city and some normal guards that notices you are there if you do some strange moves....

It wasn't as clear as in Ac2/B but it still was a notorious system, it might be a little lineal on how you advance in story but i think that if they work better in Ac2 notorious system with levels and other ways to get more notorious and lose it and use the "notorious behavior" of Ac1 for both guards and citzens then it would be perfect (2 months ago i stated how it would work but i was just to large and i don't want to writte everything again).
It was a simulated notoriety system, not an actual one. The fact that guards noticed you more easily was simply because they added patrols with alerted guards after each set of assassinations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it felt better then the notoriety system of ac2/b.

That's why i think a mix of those 2 would be better.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Please do not bypass the Language Filter.</span>

NewBlade200
10-24-2011, 06:26 PM
AC has really come into it's own in franchise wise. I think IGN increases the score of games the bigger it is.

I will hazard a guess an IGN score of 8.5 - 9.0.

I still do not understand why people insist on being given such a precise number on whether or not a game is good.

I can imagine a letter sent to Ubi:
Dear Ubi,
We apologize for giving your game such a negative review. We would have given the game a better score, only we appear to have run out of money to pay for such a difficult thing. Perhaps next time we will all be better off and much happier.
Hoping you are well,
IGN.

PS: Our benefactors at IW say we cannot send any more messages without risking our medical insurance.

luckyto
10-26-2011, 08:18 AM
http://kotaku.com/5853319/that...ryones-talking-about (http://kotaku.com/5853319/that-uncharted-3-review-everyones-talking-about)

Esco, looks like your Eurogamer review of Uncharted 3 has sparked some controversy. It was an abnormally low review for the game.

I thought it was a good article, but I disagree with knocking a game for excelling at what it what it was trying to do. It's like that game "Flower", which is a beautiful brilliant game that is just going to suit everyone's tastes. Should it knocked for not being "action-packed" when by design it was intended to be a different experience? I think Uncharted series excels at being an 'interactive Blockbuster.' You either like that type of game or you don't.

Likewise, I wouldn't respect a review of AC which lambasted it for the model of game it has chosen. It should be measured on how well it succeeds at doing so. Though as a reviewer, it is probably very difficult to do this --- to completely remove ones' gaming preferences from the analysis.

anyways, food for thought

EscoBlades
10-26-2011, 09:42 AM
Hang on!

My name is not Simon Parkin, i don't write for EuroGamer, and i didn't review Uncharted 3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

You have me mixed up with someone else.

luckyto
10-26-2011, 10:04 AM
Ha ha - yeah, I know you didn't write it. Americans (me particularly) tend to be a bit loose with Queen's English. It was just that you posted/referenced the Eurogamer review earlier in the thread... "Eurogamer's UC3 review was more on the mark."

I thought you might be interested. The Kotaku Op-Ed is very supportive of that review, and it is a good review to read - even if I don't agree with everything. As a gamer interested in the direction of the industry, it is worth reading.

Mr_Shade
10-26-2011, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by EscoBlades:
Also, as i will be reviewing the game, i don't think it would be right of me to engage in such prior to embargoes lifting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif indeed you should not..

I look forward to reading it though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jexx21
10-26-2011, 10:18 AM
WTF! To me any game over a 7.5 is a game that I will look at and see if I think it would interest me. People are freaking out over an 8?

then again, most games today are scored from 7.5 - 10.

And luckyto, I love that the different guard types did different things. They were trained that way. And they still have the same normal guards for you to fight which are more similar to AC1's original guards.

And daniel, the notoriety system of AC2/ACB felt better than whatever AC1 had.. And again luckyto, I have stood in front of guards in AC1 with my weapon drawn before and they didn't do anything.

luckyto
10-26-2011, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
And luckyto, I love that the different guard types did different things. They were trained that way. And they still have the same normal guards for you to fight which are more similar to AC1's original guards.


They were trained to attack the exact same way every time? Maybe they should have trained them to react to the same countermove which you have to use to defeat them every single time.

The normal guards are not like AC1 guards. AC1 came with "skill levels", not just types of attacks. Even the lowest AC1 guard could counter given the right circumstance. And even the highest could be hit with a sword.

In AC2 and particularly ACB, certain melee attacks simply never work on a particular type of guard - and I am forced to deal with that guard the same way every one of the two cajillion times I'm fighting that type of guard. No choice. Monotony.

Jexx21
10-26-2011, 12:41 PM
I don't believe that when you have the Sword, Dagger, Hidden Gun, Knives, Crossbow, smoke bombs, hidden blades, and now the hookblade and bombs in ACR.

iN3krO
10-26-2011, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
WTF! To me any game over a 7.5 is a game that I will look at and see if I think it would interest me. People are freaking out over an 8?

then again, most games today are scored from 7.5 - 10.

And luckyto, I love that the different guard types did different things. They were trained that way. And they still have the same normal guards for you to fight which are more similar to AC1's original guards.

And daniel, the notoriety system of AC2/ACB felt better than whatever AC1 had.. And again luckyto, I have stood in front of guards in AC1 with my weapon drawn before and they didn't do anything.

So you prefer to walk past guards with notoriety 100% and see their indicator of suspicious instead of instantly saying ASSASSIN, GET HIM!?

Or you prefer both templars and normal guards look for you when you are good for the city but bad for templars?

This is why i think there should be 3 types of notoriety, Templars, Citizens, Guards. Helping citizens would get you lower notoriety and they would help you to run away from guards or anything else (in random events). The head button should turn into save life when a guard is scared and you chose kill (increanse guard notoriety) or save (descrense guard notoriety), if it gets lower enough guards would help you fighting templars. If high citizens would call for guards and guards would help templars against you. Templars notoriety would increanse each time you kill a templar guard and templars patrols would increanse further with higher notoriety.

It's something like Fable but improved.

luckyto
10-26-2011, 01:29 PM
Jexx, half of those are not melee attacks, and the ones that are melee weapons are all restricted by guard types in same way. Sure, I could just shoot them; but actual melee combat is limited to kicking and countering now. What happened to a well-timed combo?

Altair661
10-26-2011, 01:49 PM
I dont really have a problem with IGN. While they may have some biased opinion, that's the point of a review isn't it? That person's personal opionion of the game. Have you ever seen their "second opinion" pages before? Where they ask a bunch of other editors what they think?

However I have my own opinions, so if I disagree with them, I just deal with it. I wouldn't call them bad because you don't agree with them. If you visit the site often enough and listened to their podcasts, you would know Greg Miller LOVES Uncharted, so of course they're gonna give it a 10. I dont blame them.

I mainly use reviews to see if a game is overall good/ a bust. And if a review answers that for me, then I consider it a good one.

SteelCity999
11-05-2011, 01:02 PM
I have to agree with Eurogamer on their Uncharted 3 review - it was a big letdown for me. UC2 and even UC1 was a much better product overall. UC3 had its 10 moments but there weren't enough and plenty of things are just sloppy. The story was forced and alot of characters just showed up to have them included. The ending was really disappointing.

As for AC, it has always been an interesting review. AC2 I thought should have gotten alot better reviews than it did. But, in my opinion, the AC series is a love it or hate it series. If the reviewers aren't interested in the series and don't like the gameplay there's no hope for the review score (aside from any other influences). In fact, even though I love the series, I bought AC1 and was unimpressed at first but later gave it a second try and had some patience. I'm glad I did.

Reviews are a nice starting point but the UC3 review just glaringly shows the problems with these companies and the process. I hope if ACR is a quality product it at least gets some deserved attention.

Altair661
11-05-2011, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by SteelCity999:
I have to agree with Eurogamer on their Uncharted 3 review - it was a big letdown for me. UC2 and even UC1 was a much better product overall. UC3 had its 10 moments but there weren't enough and plenty of things are just sloppy. The story was forced and alot of characters just showed up to have them included. The ending was really disappointing.

As for AC, it has always been an interesting review. AC2 I thought should have gotten alot better reviews than it did. But, in my opinion, the AC series is a love it or hate it series. If the reviewers aren't interested in the series and don't like the gameplay there's no hope for the review score (aside from any other influences). In fact, even though I love the series, I bought AC1 and was unimpressed at first but later gave it a second try and had some patience. I'm glad I did.

Reviews are a nice starting point but the UC3 review just glaringly shows the problems with these companies and the process. I hope if ACR is a quality product it at least gets some deserved attention.

What are you talking about? How was the ending bad


*SPOILERS* I liked this one the best because they didnt have any super-natural crazy creature zombie-yeti things in the end. It was actually a legit storyline with the hallucinagenetics, and I for one loved the flashback and how he had to survive in the desert. The only complaint is that sometimes the enemies felt forced (especially in syria) when it felt like you were just fighting wave after wave.*SPOILERS END*



I felt like U3 was the best in the series, they had an excellent story (and a longer one at that than any 1st person shooter) and had great character development, and the story was believeable. The multiplayer only got better and not to mention the co-op is pretty good as well. U3 is well worth the 60$ just as Arkham City was, and ACR will. Simple enough.

SteelCity999
11-05-2011, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Altair661:

What are you talking about? How was the ending bad


*SPOILERS* I liked this one the best because they didnt have any super-natural crazy creature zombie-yeti things in the end. It was actually a legit storyline with the hallucinagenetics, and I for one loved the flashback and how he had to survive in the desert. The only complaint is that sometimes the enemies felt forced (especially in syria) when it felt like you were just fighting wave after wave.*SPOILERS END*



I felt like U3 was the best in the series, they had an excellent story (and a longer one at that than any 1st person shooter) and had great character development, and the story was believeable. The multiplayer only got better and not to mention the co-op is pretty good as well. U3 is well worth the 60$ just as Arkham City was, and ACR will. Simple enough.


SPOILERS AHEAD...

The end was just bad and a letdown. I say this because they actually did a great job with the hallucination sequence - the enemies were great, you had some emotionally interest because of Sully. And then, you got taken out of it, which was fine, but after that it was just the same old same old bad guys doing the same old same old things. Marlowe's death sequence was pathetic and you ended up fighting her puppy dog henchman. Then the escape sequence was just plain bad looking and sloppy. UC2 was much better in story, emotional and gameplay. Aa for the yeti creatures in UC2, they were challenging and fine, I mean look at what Ubi wants you to believe in AC.....?? Not to mention, I didn't feel like I knew or had a solid understanding as to why they(Marlowe) were doing what they were - what was their motivation? Backstory...not to mention, they throw Elaina in there and you are left guessing as to what really happened....there was one sequence that was done well after the cruiser sank but there was no reasons given as to why they were like they were (her and Drake). Then you had the sequences on the horses which were really awful. AC has better horse dynamics than UC3 - you felt like they were gliding across the sand and you caught up to the vehicles way to fast. RDR is the gold standard and Naughty Dog was off the map on the this one.

That's not to say the game was bad. The sea sequences were great - in the shipyard and the cruiser. They captured the atmosphere of the sea very well. The plane crash sequence was great. Graphically, they showcase what the PS3 can do if developers put their minds to it. The rest of the game is vintage Uncharted - which is not a bad thing - but it didn't deserve a 10 or even a 9.

SPOILERS END ****

One of my big points is that because Naughty Dog has such great production values in there game they are being rewarded with a abnormally high score. Just because AC and Ubi does not have the same production level (you can't even compare how Drake and the environment looks to the AC series nor the cinematic feel of the game) they aren't rewarded with appropriate scores for the quality of the overall game and how it advances the series.

Altair661
11-05-2011, 03:11 PM
I do agree that they need more backstory, I was confused as to whether or not Drake and Elaina were married in the begginning or not and some other things. While it may not have been worthy of a 10, I think it deserves at least a 9. However while I think the Eurogamer guy was bit too literal making it seem as too much of a movie, games like Heavy Rain are praised for that.

I do think that Naughty Dog does get a certain amount of automatic praise because of what they have done, but then again, it's only because they have done extrememly well in the past and are only trying to improve. I feel like they needed more story, and less combat, seeing as Uncharted main focus isn't on the combat.

U3 will most likely get higher scored than ACR simply because it's an Uncharted game. That's just how it is. Had everyone loved the other AC's Ubisoft would up there too. I think ACR will at least a 9. But this game will have to prove to everyone that Ubisoft is indeed a top level developer and they are prepared to go up against games like MW3, Skyrim, Arkham City, Uncharted 3, and let AC3 get the best chance at GOTY that any AC game has gotten next year.

iN3krO
11-05-2011, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Altair661:
I do agree that they need more backstory, I was confused as to whether or not Drake and Elaina were married in the begginning or not and some other things. While it may not have been worthy of a 10, I think it deserves at least a 9. However while I think the Eurogamer guy was bit too literal making it seem as too much of a movie, games like Heavy Rain are praised for that.

I do think that Naughty Dog does get a certain amount of automatic praise because of what they have done, but then again, it's only because they have done extrememly well in the past and are only trying to improve. I feel like they needed more story, and less combat, seeing as Uncharted main focus isn't on the combat.

U3 will most likely get higher scored than ACR simply because it's an Uncharted game. That's just how it is. Had everyone loved the other AC's Ubisoft would up there too. I think ACR will at least a 9. But this game will have to prove to everyone that Ubisoft is indeed a top level developer and they are prepared to go up against games like MW3, Skyrim, Arkham City, Uncharted 3, and let AC3 get the best chance at GOTY that any AC game has gotten next year.

Mw3, Bf3 and Skyrim are the best games released this years so far... i don't like bf3 and skyrimg but i respect it... however, AcR will not be at the same level but i believe Ac3 can get a chance to be awared GOTY if Ubisoft improve it as well as they did with Ac2.

Animuses
11-05-2011, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Mw3, Bf3 and Skyrim are the best games released this years so far... i don't like bf3 and skyrimg but i respect it... however, AcR will not be at the same level but i believe Ac3 can get a chance to be awared GOTY if Ubisoft improve it as well as they did with Ac2.
MW3 is CoD4 #5.

masterfenix2009
11-05-2011, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Mw3, Bf3 and Skyrim are the best games released this years so far... i don't like bf3 and skyrimg but i respect it... however, AcR will not be at the same level but i believe Ac3 can get a chance to be awared GOTY if Ubisoft improve it as well as they did with Ac2.
MW3 is CoD4 #5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This

Altair661
11-05-2011, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Mw3, Bf3 and Skyrim are the best games released this years so far... i don't like bf3 and skyrimg but i respect it... however, AcR will not be at the same level but i believe Ac3 can get a chance to be awared GOTY if Ubisoft improve it as well as they did with Ac2.
MW3 is CoD4 #5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't matter what you call it, slap Call of Duty on it and millions of people will buy it. I liked COD4 (first next-gen game I ever got) but it's kinda gettin old, better than BF3 though(major let-down) But we dont need to rant on about MW3.