PDA

View Full Version : IGN discuss "biggest disappointments of 2012"



Pages : [1] 2

ACfan443
12-01-2012, 04:52 PM
What are your thoughts on this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS3csczHtYg

Although I agreed with only a few of the points they made, AC3 was definitely not a 'biggest disappointment of 2012' for me. Giving it that title is too harsh and unfair considering some of the other garbage produced this year and not included in that video.

the_heat11
12-01-2012, 05:00 PM
I can actually see where they are coming from. Granted,I completey disagree with them, however it seemed like they put their expectations way too high and expected it to be a perfect game. with expectations that high no **** they are going to he disappointed. that hoes with any goes cuz well no game is perfect

xboxauditore
12-01-2012, 05:07 PM
I'm rapidly starting to hate IGN.

zerocooll21
12-01-2012, 05:30 PM
Nerds... I think one of them actually finished it. Their utter lack of understanding makes people who have a real gripe seem like these guys.

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 05:37 PM
I think IGN is who's fast becoming the biggest disappointment - but then hey that's just my personal opinion.

It's all about what you like and dislike in AC and people are becoming more and more divided.

zerocooll21
12-01-2012, 05:42 PM
I think IGN is who's fast becoming the biggest disappointment - but then hey that's just my personal opinion.

It's all about what you like and dislike in AC and people are becoming more and more divided.

Indeed. I have to wonder how much of how desmond was handled in AC:3 was influenced by Ubi trying to satisfy morons like this.

ACfan443
12-01-2012, 05:42 PM
Nerds... I think one of them actually finished it. Their utter lack of understanding makes people who have a real gripe seem like these guys.

The guy who didn't even play it shouldn't be allowed to give his opinion. And I agree, don't think any of them finished it, they really irritate me. Especially the one who was swearing his mouth off and digging at it as if it was a complete piece of crap.


Indeed. I have to wonder how much of how desmond was handled in AC:3 was influenced by Ubi trying to satisfy morons like this.

After finishing it, it was very apparent that they catered too much for the newcomers, which is probably why a lot the Desmond stuff was so neglected.

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 05:42 PM
I just love how they talk about 'you don't need the animus'... guess what, they created this animus as part of a deeper story for current characters.
Just becuz you don't NEED something doesn't mean it's stupid to have it in the game.
That guy on the right is a dolt. And let me guess, he's a COD fan? lol

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 05:58 PM
....... they are idiots.... but they are right about one thing....

A GAME SHOULD NOT TAKE 7 HOURS TO GET TO MAIN HERO. there is nothing that can defend that type of thing. Connor is the reason why we bought this game... not his dad. i swear, i don't want to even start over a new slot because i can't stand playing as haytham for so long. and a WHOLE lot of people are subconisously thinking the same. why do ppl say the story is short? in actuallaity(game hours) its everything but short. but the fact that you don't play as the main hero until 1/4 of the way in is making people think it was short. whether they knowingly know it or not. it completely ruined the replay value of the game for me personally. I don't know why they are complaining about cutscense.... every assassin game was like that right? they are idiots

lothario-da-be
12-01-2012, 06:02 PM
My expectations were a game that wasn't less good then brotherhood or revelations. And i'am completly satisfied.

Kaschra
12-01-2012, 06:08 PM
Well... this is ********.
I guess they expected a perfect game - which doesn't exist.



....... they are idiots.... but they are right about one thing....

A GAME SHOULD NOT TAKE 7 HOURS TO GET TO MAIN HERO. there is nothing that can defend that type of thing. Connor is the reason why we bought this game... not his dad. i swear, i don't want to even start over a new slot because i can't stand playing as haytham for so long. and a WHOLE lot of people are subconisously thinking the same. why do ppl say the story is short? in actuallaity(game hours) its everything but short. but the fact that you don't play as the main hero until 3/4 of the way in is making people think it was short. whether they knowingly know it or not. it completely ruined the replay value of the game for me personally. I don't know why they are complaining about cutscense.... every assassin game was like that right? they are idiots

Not this again *facepalm*
3/4 of the game as Haytham? Sorry, but WHAT?
This gets really annoying and tiring...

kuled2012
12-01-2012, 06:11 PM
Jesus christ I hate this site with a passion, how is it so successful? ****s sake.

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 06:14 PM
Well... this is ********.
I guess they expected a perfect game - which doesn't exist.




Not this again *facepalm*
3/4 of the game as Haytham? Sorry, but WHAT?
This gets really annoying and tiring...

that was a typo obviously. you've heard enough of my rants to know what i mean. that means that you are deliberately misunderstanding. thats called trolling. you also have the choice to ignore me and not read my comments. something getting annoying and tiring can easily be fixed... yet you decide to make a troll-like response.

Kaschra
12-01-2012, 06:21 PM
that was a typo obviously. you've heard enough of my rants to know what i mean. that means that you are deliberately misunderstanding. thats called trolling. you also have the choice to ignore me and not read my comments. something getting annoying and tiring can easily be fixed... yet you decide to make a troll-like response.
How about NO?
Please tell me how this was trolling just because I did not ignore it :o
Sorry, but you love to complain about how long it takes to play as Connor, so this "3/4 of the game" coming from you would not surprise me at all.

rileypoole1234
12-01-2012, 06:30 PM
Since I've been somewhat of an IGN fan, I can see what they mean, but I don't agree with it. That may just be because I'll never not like an AC game though...

GunnarGunderson
12-01-2012, 06:33 PM
Being a disappointment doesn't mean the game is bad, it just means Ubisoft promised more than they could deliver. There were waaaaaay worse games this year, but the difference is that we all new that Hitman Absolution was going to be a piece of garbage that betrays everything the made the series great and original.


Jesus christ I hate this site with a passion, how is it so successful? ****s sake.
paid reviews

Serrachio
12-01-2012, 06:36 PM
Personally, while I think Haytham's attitude (aside from the executions) made him a better character than Connor, including him in the first half of the game wrecked all sense of surprise later on.

Also, Connor's abrasiveness impacted on my enjoyment of him as a person.

GunnarGunderson
12-01-2012, 06:41 PM
Personally, while I think Haytham's attitude (aside from the executions) made him a better character than Connor, including him in the first half of the game wrecked all sense of surprise later on.

Also, Connor's abrasiveness impacted on my enjoyment of him as a person.

And his naivety, he seriously had "Templars = Loyalists?" written on his templar portrait wall

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 06:42 PM
How about NO?
Please tell me how this was trolling just because I did not ignore it :o
Sorry, but you love to complain about how long it takes to play as Connor, so this "3/4 of the game" coming from you would not surprise me at all.

it's trolling because you deliberatly misuderstood my post amd reacted accordingly.

i love to criticise it. because in reality it did take away from the overall experience for me. but i make a point of TRYING not making factually wrong statements. there really is no sensible arguement why it took so long to play the hero we bought the game for. something that could have taken 3 hours or less was stretched as long as possible. yes AC games in general kinda start slow especially when introducing a new hero... but they weren't introducing a new hero, they were introducing the villian and his band of cohorts.... how actually got more intro-time than connor and desmond combined. it could be argued that all they had to do was the fool the gamer into thinking a certain way that would increase the shock value at the end sequence 3. but they went the extra mile(which they didn't seem to do with connor and sure as hell not with desmond) and decided to introduce his cohorts, his journey to america, his personal hate against other people. connor got a game of hide in seek, with a bunch of friends... all of his friends but one, are never even seen again in the story. his mother said like 3 sentnces throughout the whole thing. you never even delve into connors culture and relationships(specifically with his mother. but you sure as hell get to see haytham go to an opera... travel on a boat to america... devise plans with friends who are actually relavant to the story. sure is a good thing there is teenage connor sequnce... that is less than 2 hours, while haytham's on average is 5. the story is aqbout a native american assassin, but there is so much emphasis on the white american culture rather than his own he might as well have been a white guy! the ign guys are idiots but i can clearly see why they have a problem with the on average 7 hour time span before you put the hood on. took ezio like 1 hour and 30 to put it on and altair i don't think even had to delay. sorry but it REALLY bothers me. id have replayed the story 5 times or more by now if i knew i wouldn't have haytham waiting for me. just my opinion

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 06:45 PM
....... they are idiots.... but they are right about one thing....

A GAME SHOULD NOT TAKE 7 HOURS TO GET TO MAIN HERO. there is nothing that can defend that type of thing. Connor is the reason why we bought this game... not his dad. i swear, i don't want to even start over a new slot because i can't stand playing as haytham for so long. and a WHOLE lot of people are subconisously thinking the same. why do ppl say the story is short? in actuallaity(game hours) its everything but short. but the fact that you don't play as the main hero until 1/4 of the way in is making people think it was short. whether they knowingly know it or not. it completely ruined the replay value of the game for me personally. I don't know why they are complaining about cutscense.... every assassin game was like that right? they are idiots

I'm still in Seq/ 9, so far my theory is that they had us play Hatham for character buildup - I don't know what happens, but I did know that I liked Haytham alot when I played him.
Maybe that will factor into future events?
Also yes I do know what you mean about replay value - I had to replay the game since I had an issue w/ my gamertag & redid something. When I went to play Ac, my current save was gone, so I had to start replaying.
The thing is, I spent alot more time as Haytham doing more free roam & searching for stuff on the first playthru. Knowing what I know now on a 2nd playthru, I won't use Haytham for viewpoints in Boston - I'll wait till I'm Connor when I get there.

To me, it sets up good story - I just won't search for treasure that isn't there next playthru & do less with him. Not a big problem imo.

pirate1802
12-01-2012, 06:50 PM
LOL IGN...

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/101/781/Y0UJC.png

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 06:51 PM
Since I've been somewhat of an IGN fan, I can see what they mean, but I don't agree with it. That may just be because I'll never not like an AC game though...

And in comparison, that idiot on the right looks like he never was an AC fan to begin with - he shouldn't even be talking about it if he's a hater.
Give him a topic he might like better; ... BF3 or COD BO. lol

pacmanate
12-01-2012, 06:52 PM
I agree with them, it was kinda disappointing, great game but Far Cry 3 will probably get GOTY instead of AC3.

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 06:58 PM
I'm grabbing Far Cry 3 when it comes out too (Cmas present). I skipped FC2 after reading reviews - this one looks pretty good. The first one was pretty wild lol

pirate1802
12-01-2012, 07:00 PM
Biggest disappointment of 2012 >>> ME3.

ACfan443
12-01-2012, 07:02 PM
I agree with them, it was kinda disappointing, great game but Far Cry 3 will probably get GOTY instead of AC3.

I do think that it was a little disappointing, but one of the 'biggest disappointments of 2012'? I really can't agree with that

D.I.D.
12-01-2012, 07:03 PM
I just love how they talk about 'you don't need the animus'... guess what, they created this animus as part of a deeper story for current characters.
Just becuz you don't NEED something doesn't mean it's stupid to have it in the game.
That guy on the right is a dolt. And let me guess, he's a COD fan? lol

I think they mean that for them, it would be better if you don't have current characters at all: no animus, no modern day story.

I have to say, I agree with them. The modern/TWCB could have been good, but it isn't, and it's pretty much hopeless now. The same people are going to keep treading the same terrible story until they kill the series, and that's a huge shame.

You saw what happened at the end of AC3. You know what the next one's going to be about, and who the Big Bad will be. Does your heart not sink? Do you not forsee the story collapsing under its own weight when there is no greater silliness left to explore? It's going to be bigger every time, and sadly in AC that means bigger and stupider. With a bit more class and restraint, there's still an opportunity to claw it back in and protect the series, but AC's writers seem to completely overestimate their skill with stories so I doubt they'll have that epiphany any time soon.

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 07:03 PM
Biggest disappointment of 2012 >>> ME3.

That was SAD - I fell in love ME2 & couldn't wait till that came out - - then I read the reviews and my heart sank. :(
I just can't play it - it'll make me feel like ME2 was a waste. But then I did hear it was great gameplay for awhile.

D.I.D.
12-01-2012, 07:04 PM
And in comparison, that idiot on the right looks like he never was an AC fan to begin with - he shouldn't even be talking about it if he's a hater.
Give him a topic he might like better; ... BF3 or COD BO. lol

The guy on the right says he loves Valve games, so I doubt that very much.

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 07:09 PM
I think they mean that for them, it would be better if you don't have current characters at all: no animus, no modern day story.

I have to say, I agree with them. The modern/TWCB could have been good, but it isn't, and it's pretty much hopeless now. The same people are going to keep treading the same terrible story until they kill the series, and that's a huge shame.

You saw what happened at the end of AC3. You know what the next one's going to be about, and who the Big Bad will be. Does your heart not sink? Do you not forsee the story collapsing under its own weight when there is no greater silliness left to explore? It's going to be bigger every time, and sadly in AC that means bigger and stupider. With a bit more class and restraint, there's still an opportunity to claw it back in and protect the series, but AC's writers seem to completely overestimate their skill with stories so I doubt they'll have that epiphany any time soon.

I'm in Sequence 9 so I haven't gotten to the end yet & I also quit reading after that sentence in the 3rd paragraph in case it had spoilers.
Their attack on the animus was that it was even created when they didn't need it for the game concept (assassin ancestors etc.).
I was only referring to that point of their ridicule. Not how the TWCB story subsequently goes in the series and possibly ruins the previous story.
To be honest I always thought it was a brilliant concept, I just really didn't get into that aspect of them or Desmond.
I just wanted to get back to Ezio or Connor. Nothing I'd attack about AC.

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 07:12 PM
To be honest I always thought it was a brilliant concept, I just really didn't get into that aspect of them or Desmond.
I just wanted to get back to Ezio or Connor. Nothing I'd attack about AC.

same way. i did the desmond parts simply because i was forced to...

pirate1802
12-01-2012, 07:23 PM
That was SAD - I fell in love ME2 & couldn't wait till that came out - - then I read the reviews and my heart sank. :(
I just can't play it - it'll make me feel like ME2 was a waste. But then I did hear it was great gameplay for awhile.

I felt about exactly the same way as you, was confused whether to play it or not.. but then I went ahead and played it. :'|

D.I.D.
12-01-2012, 07:25 PM
same way. i did the desmond parts simply because i was forced to...

I think they missed a huge opportunity with Abstergo. That company is clearly a pantomime version of the worst facets of 21st century multinational pharamaceutical companies. Earlier games' background info had placed major capitalist heroes of industry and politics as Templars. With the banking crisis and recession still rampant in the real world, there was an excellent opportunity for Ubisoft to make use of that and give the modern story some resonance with the present day of the real world. When I was playing ACB, I felt certain that this was what they were edging towards, and I wondered if we might see some references to a fictionalised Occupy movement or something like that. It's a pity they backed away from the political hot potato and presented a much smaller conflict instead.

orangebionic
12-01-2012, 07:26 PM
i can see what ign insinuate at some point, that game promised more than delivered, but biggest dissapointment, come on, what about poor mass effect3 and horribly written, badly thought through endings? That was big, glowing message of writers laziness and creative crisis mixed with bad case of"get rich quick" attitude. What about many other games , so bad, i dont even remember them?

I dont think I am the first to say it about ign- most of them are fanboys of very narrow genre, and ign as group was many times accused on many forums of being kind to ceratin dev's , in return for...lets call it gratifications.

TheHumanTowel
12-01-2012, 07:30 PM
"The Animus bothers me. There's no reason for it."
http://i.imgur.com/KBNcZ.gif
Stopped watching after that.

xboxauditore
12-01-2012, 07:31 PM
^^

That is the funniest GIF I've ever seen.

rupok2
12-01-2012, 07:31 PM
I thought it was a disappointment as well but not because of the reasons they presented besides maybe the follow/chase missions which are extremely annoying (they were annoying in previous ac as well). The modern part of the story is what ties everything together and since In my opinion that part is becoming worse since revelations that is what disappointed me the most. I would not want the modern part gone since thats what makes it unique.

D.I.D.
12-01-2012, 07:32 PM
^^

That is the funniest GIF I've ever seen.

Channel 4 (UK), "The IT Crowd"

D.I.D.
12-01-2012, 07:39 PM
I would not want the modern part gone since thats what makes it unique.

It would still be unique without that. Very few games deal with history at all, and AC's thing seems to be about dodging the parts of history that have been explored by other companies.

The animus was a great idea in terms of justifying the HUD, the invisible walls of game worlds (although you can see AC's walls, but you know what I mean) and messages. It used to be great when they used the animus to teach you things about history via Shaun's interjections, but Ubisoft seems to be shying away from confronting players with any fancy book-learnin' now and all that stuff gets tucked away in menus.

The modern story does tying things together, but it also ties them up. The series has picked up so much baggage over five titles that prevent a lot of things from happening. If an AC game was freed from the TWCB/PoE thing and did not have to lead back to the modern world, you might be surprised at how much narrative freedom there would be.

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 07:42 PM
"The Animus bothers me. There's no reason for it."
http://i.imgur.com/KBNcZ.gif
Stopped watching after that.

Same here. At that point they were wasting my time. I couldn't believe he said that.




I think they missed a huge opportunity with Abstergo. That company is clearly a pantomime version of the worst facets of 21st century multinational pharamaceutical companies. Earlier games' background info had placed major capitalist heroes of industry and politics as Templars. With the banking crisis and recession still rampant in the real world, there was an excellent opportunity for Ubisoft to make use of that and give the modern story some resonance with the present day of the real world. When I was playing ACB, I felt certain that this was what they were edging towards, and I wondered if we might see some references to a fictionalised Occupy movement or something like that. It's a pity they backed away from the political hot potato and presented a much smaller conflict instead.

I like how different sides read in the Political viewpoints they want to see. I'm glad they didn't go there becuz it would have peeved me off.
I play video games to escape the chaos and crap of American politics & division - the last thing I want to do is play an AC game that brings me right back into it. I won't even mention left/right political sides and how offending it to the right if you want to go there.
Can't agree with this.

AdrianJacek
12-01-2012, 07:46 PM
"The Animus bothers me. There's no reason for it."
http://i.imgur.com/KBNcZ.gif
Stopped watching after that.

Ha! :) Indeed.
This... this f*cking statement. I just hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE, HATE, HATE, HAAAATE it. You know, when we're at it let's remove Stark from The Longest Journey and Dreamfall. Le'ts remove the Reapers from Mass Effect. Let's remove Machines from The Matrix. Wouldn't they all be great that way?

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 07:47 PM
the only sensible point they made out of that how vid was the haytham prolouge.

Jexx21
12-01-2012, 07:47 PM
That was SAD - I fell in love ME2 & couldn't wait till that came out - - then I read the reviews and my heart sank. :(
I just can't play it - it'll make me feel like ME2 was a waste. But then I did hear it was great gameplay for awhile.

Don't trust reviews.

I freaking love ME3 and think it's the best one.

AssassinVenice
12-01-2012, 07:54 PM
Although I have to agree that the beginning part with Haytham was very tedious, the game was very well thought out and marvelously executed.
This was what I was expecting from AC3, and that's what I got. Too bad that optimization is far from good. Bugs are very annoying as well...
I am voting AC3 for GOTY award! :D

AdrianJacek
12-01-2012, 08:00 PM
I myself don't get people's issues with Haytham. My only reaction to that was "Holy crap, I'm 3 hours in and still no sight of Connor? Whatever, this is awesome!".

xboxauditore
12-01-2012, 08:04 PM
I myself don't get people's issues with Haytham. My only reaction to that was "Holy crap, I'm 3 hours in and still no sight of Connor? Whatever, this is awesome!".

That was what I was like, but after 4 hours he was getting kinda tedious.

Sidizen
12-01-2012, 08:04 PM
I'm rapidly starting to hate IGN.

I definitely think IGN is getting worse.

D.I.D.
12-01-2012, 08:06 PM
I like how different sides read in the Political viewpoints they want to see. I'm glad they didn't go there becuz it would have peeved me off.
I play video games to escape the chaos and crap of American politics & division - the last thing I want to do is play an AC game that brings me right back into it. I won't even mention left/right political sides and how offending it to the right if you want to go there.
Can't agree with this.

Okay, I can understand that you don't want to see it happen. However, it already did; it's right there in the background info of the puzzles in the Ezio games, and it's not about the USA but the whole world. They put Ransom Eli Olds and Henry Ford on the same side as vicious dictators such as Pinochet, Stalin and Hitler (as they should, since Henry Ford and Hitler had a mutual admiration). They placed Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill as Templars too, heroes of the UK right wing, while figures such as Kissinger and Scalia were made Templars in the US. The game talked up major socialist figures such as Allende on the opposing side, alongside Gandhi. There is a very distinct split between the real world people they chose to be Templars and those they made Assassins. While there are capitalist figures on both sides, their politics determine where they divide.

Pay attention to the words and images in the puzzles. They are all about the injustices of modern capitalism and the exploitation of the workers. I've seen people with a different take on it too who try and claim that it's all about 'freedom', but you have to ignore a hell of a lot of real detail to take that from it. Bottom line is, they had the guts to put this out there but not enough to see it through and risk a sales hit. Fair enough, I guess.

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 08:07 PM
I myself don't get people's issues with Haytham. My only reaction to that was "Holy crap, I'm 3 hours in and still no sight of Connor? Whatever, this is awesome!".


That was what I was like, but after 4 hours he was getting kinda tedious.

doesn't matter how "awesome" it is. the mere fact that its that long is a problem. specificly since connor didn't get that type of intro attention

AdrianJacek
12-01-2012, 08:08 PM
That was what I was like, but after 4 hours he was getting kinda tedious.
At the point when I said to myself - "Okay, I want to see some Desmond and Connor now" - THAT cutscene happened. You know which one, one of the greatest cutscenes ever. And it was glorious.

ZephyrStrife
12-01-2012, 08:41 PM
Bare in mind that these are the same guys who said in this video that Black Ops 2 was amazing. Lost all credentials right there for me.

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 09:50 PM
Okay, I can understand that you don't want to see it happen. However, it already did; it's right there in the background info of the puzzles in the Ezio games, and it's not about the USA but the whole world. They put Ransom Eli Olds and Henry Ford on the same side as vicious dictators such as Pinochet, Stalin and Hitler (as they should, since Henry Ford and Hitler had a mutual admiration). They placed Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill as Templars too, heroes of the UK right wing, while figures such as Kissinger and Scalia were made Templars in the US. The game talked up major socialist figures such as Allende on the opposing side, alongside Gandhi. There is a very distinct split between the real world people they chose to be Templars and those they made Assassins. While there are capitalist figures on both sides, their politics determine where they divide.

Pay attention to the words and images in the puzzles. They are all about the injustices of modern capitalism and the exploitation of the workers. I've seen people with a different take on it too who try and claim that it's all about 'freedom', but you have to ignore a hell of a lot of real detail to take that from it. Bottom line is, they had the guts to put this out there but not enough to see it through and risk a sales hit. Fair enough, I guess.

I realize that it's there- but they've managed to keep a lid on it... it's basically subtle enough where it doesn't punch you in the face. Altho, I just recently read some Emails from Shaun and had a convo w/ him outside the animus and it wasn't subtle at all.:nonchalance:
I'm a strong advocate of Capitalism - it's just that like any system, it has its pitfalls, shortcomings and balances that get out whack and needs some sensible fine-tuning or regulation. Fair enough. But anything past that I think is a bad direction for any game to tread into imo.

One other point, at the beginning of the game, they post a 'disclaimer' of sorts that it's a multicultural team of people w/ various beliefs & faiths... if they want to hold true to that, they really shouldn't push one specific Political or religious agenda as I see it. They should stay more neutral or at least present the opposing (obvious) viewpoint.
Fair & balanced and all that kind of thing ;)

If a game is good enough, alot of gamers can overlook things to enjoy the experience but if they want to beat people over the heads w/ one-sided political or religious attacks.... I would probly speak up about it. I just think it's unnecessary.to go that far into modern issues. But that's just me.

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 09:52 PM
Bare in mind that these are the same guys who said in this video that Black Ops 2 was amazing. Lost all credentials right there for me.

Go figure. haha, I was right then :p

Assassin_M
12-01-2012, 09:57 PM
Oh Ha Ha....IGN

They sound like a whiny baby whom Santa gave Cole for Christmas..

AdrianJacek
12-01-2012, 09:58 PM
One other point, at the beginning of the game, they post a 'disclaimer' of sorts that it's a multicultural team of people w/ various beliefs & faiths... if they want to hold true to that, they really shouldn't push one specific Political or religious agenda as I see it. They should stay more neutral or at least present the opposing (obvious) viewpoin

That's more of a warning for the whole TWCB story. You know, that it's a work of fiction. So no butthurt religious group would get pissed. Some people DO forget that it's FICTION. Heck, I'm a Christian myself and I don't have any issues with works of FICTION like AC or DaVinci Code. But some apparently do.

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 10:00 PM
That's more of a warning for the whole TWCB story. You know, that it's a work of fiction. So no butthurt religious group would get pissed. Some people DO forget that it's FICTION. Heck, I'm a Christian myself and I don't have any issues with works of FICTION like AC or DaVinci Code. But some apparently do.

the da vinci code was a master piece *nostalgic*
i'm not christian but it was very great story-telling

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 10:11 PM
That's more of a warning for the whole TWCB story. You know, that it's a work of fiction. So no butthurt religious group would get pissed. Some people DO forget that it's FICTION. Heck, I'm a Christian myself and I don't have any issues with works of FICTION like AC or DaVinci Code. But some apparently do.

I didn't realize it was aimed more at the TWCB thing.
And same here, but I'm also well aware that even Christianity is littered with false followers along the way who do some nasty things (which is actually warned about in the NT about false leaders & converts/wolves).... I don't mind a game exploring or exploiting those facts. & other stuff like you mention with Fiction. There's a fine line and I don't see as AC has crossed any in being outright offensive.
(didn't mean to push this further off topic than the original reply to the other post).

They could have also mentioned Resident Evil ORC and RE6 both... talk about leaving their origins as survival/horror...
I think AC3 was newest & they just chose that one to bag on

Assassin_M
12-01-2012, 10:16 PM
So.....what about Hitman ?? Oh wait yeah IGN gave it 9..While every other THING gave it less than 8...of course..

Wait....One of them did not even play AC III Yet 0_o

ACfan443
12-01-2012, 10:18 PM
So.....what about Hitman ?? Oh wait yeah IGN gave it 9..While every other THING gave it less than 8...of course..

Wait....One of them did not even play AC III Yet 0_o

Yepp, and that's why I'm annoyed that he had a say in that discussion. Not very fair.

Assassin_M
12-01-2012, 10:22 PM
Yepp, and that's why I'm annoyed that he had a say in that discussion. Not very fair.
Oh boy, going deeper into this, doesn't sound like they know anything beyond the general details

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 10:23 PM
they are lucky they didn't say anything bad about connor....... i would have wrote an angry letter

Assassin_M
12-01-2012, 10:24 PM
Hmm it says reach us at gamescoop@ign.com

Looks like I`m going to do something stupid

ProdiGurl
12-01-2012, 10:26 PM
Hmm it says reach us at gamescoop@ign.com

Looks like I`m going to do something stupid

Grin

ACfan443
12-01-2012, 10:32 PM
So.....what about Hitman ?? Oh wait yeah IGN gave it 9..While every other THING gave it less than 8...of course..

Wait....One of them did not even play AC III Yet 0_o


Oh boy, going deeper into this, doesn't sound like they know anything beyond the general details

Definitely, from their discussion the only insight I got into their understanding was "uuh don't like the animus thing...stupid aliens trying to take over the world, Weird plot doesn't make sense...hate Desmond, blah blah blah" ...even though some of what they said had a little credibility, they're just the epitome of ignorance.

It'd be so much better of they'd sat down editors who understood the plot and knew what they were talking about. I'm just sick of people bashing the animus concept.

Sushiglutton
12-01-2012, 10:38 PM
Thought it was the best game I've played all year.

AdrianJacek
12-01-2012, 10:56 PM
So.....what about Hitman ?? Oh wait yeah IGN gave it 9..While every other THING gave it less than 8...of course..

Wait....One of them did not even play AC III Yet 0_o

Wait... are you suggesting that you have to actually play a game to properly criticize it? That's crazy! No one does that nowadays.

Assassin_M
12-01-2012, 10:57 PM
Wait... are you suggesting that you have to actually play a game to properly criticize it? That's crazy! No one does that nowadays.
My life is a lie:eek:

Kaiskune
12-01-2012, 11:07 PM
nah, despite Montreal's failure to revive the neutrality of AC1, AC3 was still a brilliant game that has kept me entertained mostly through the hunting alone.

biggest disappointment by far of 2012 was Ubisoft Paris's gaff up Future Soldier

shobhit7777777
12-01-2012, 11:09 PM
About ****ing time AC3 was called out...this **** was inevitable. I'm actually surprised that IGN did this...

Giving Absolution a 9 and an AC an 8+..? I'm impressed IGN.


nah, despite Montreal's failure to revive the neutrality of AC1, AC3 was still a brilliant game that has kept me entertained mostly through the hunting alone.

biggest disappointment by far of 2012 was Ubisoft Paris's gaff up Future Soldier

How could I forget about GRFS. You're right...it trumps AC3...definitely

Jexx21
12-01-2012, 11:13 PM
Shobhit, I can deal with you wanting AC3 to be 'called out' (which it has been before by the way, by Kotaku), but I can't believe that you actually agree with the complaints that they're raising in the video.

Assassin_M
12-01-2012, 11:14 PM
Shobhit, I can deal with you wanting AC3 to be 'called out' (which it has been before by the way, by Kotaku), but I can't believe that you actually agree with the complaints that they're raising in the video.
Shobhit will agree with anything that calls AC III ****..

Jexx21
12-01-2012, 11:15 PM
I thought you respected the way Shobhit raised his opinion?

Assassin_M
12-01-2012, 11:18 PM
I thought you respected the way Shobhit raised his opinion?
Of course I do...

What does that have to do with what I said ?? xD

Putting forth his opinion and HIS opinion itself are 2 different things to hate and/or respect

shobhit7777777
12-01-2012, 11:22 PM
Shobhit, I can deal with you wanting AC3 to be 'called out' (which it has been before by the way, by Kotaku), but I can't believe that you actually agree with the complaints that they're raising in the video.

The only thing I agreed with them was regarding the pacing issue...but overall a game just doesn't become the years biggest disappointment solely because of a slow pace. there are serious issues ith the game...which haven't been touched upon. Kotaku did a similar piece and nailed why AC3 ****ed up and where it ****ed up.

I may disagree with them on a few points or a technicality here or there but they do echo my overall sentiments regarding how the game fell short.

And playing Dishonored and Hitman: Absolution in the same year only amplifies the flaws of AC3 and how it feels like a juvenile and shallow gameplay experience.

And M is right....any article being stern on AC3 will be welcomed by me. Since the forums are majorly composed of "lovers"...some criticisms from more professional and detached sources is just what we may need.

zerocooll21
12-01-2012, 11:25 PM
Hmm it says reach us at gamescoop@ign.com

Looks like I`m going to do something Brilliant


Fixed :p

FirestarLuva
12-01-2012, 11:25 PM
Why don't IGN just leave AC3 alone? Glad even on Youtube the video had many dislikes, many people didn't agree with it. First the hate on their review video and now on this. The game sucked for them because IGN rushed through the main story, without any side missions just to write a review on the first day. If AC3 and Connor were a real fail, the game wouldn't be getting so much positive views, nominations, or Connor even get nominated for Character of the Year with so many other protagonists around. >.<

bitebug2003
12-01-2012, 11:34 PM
I do agree with some of the issues raised by IGN as I'm also disappointed in AC3 as I can't finish it due to persistant bugs despite the Thanksgiving patch.

Technical:

First off there was my save file corruption which meant I had to redo everything again from 34% to 64%
Constant freezing for a few seconds in the middle of action sections.
The Farmers log glitch (it did resolve itself eventually but it was an unnecessary issue)
Trying to align a puzzle caused issues in that it wouldn't register. It meant I had to redo it multiple times until it did register.
Delivery requests did not list the items I needed to complete the mission. This meant having to quit to the title screen and reload again until it did list the items.
Lastly the Aquila's 'health' bar isn't displayed and it makes it extremely hard to do the story mission not knowing how much damage I'm taking (unresolved).

Gameplay:

Extremely slow start
Too much back and forth between areas
Fast travel takes too long
Stale gameplay
Lacked some of the better elements from old AC's

AC2 was far superior and Ezio was much more likeable than Connor.

TrueAssassin77
12-01-2012, 11:37 PM
I

AC2 was far superior and Ezio was much more cliche than Connor.

fixed

monster_rambo
12-02-2012, 12:00 AM
The only thing I agreed with them was regarding the pacing issue...but overall a game just doesn't become the years biggest disappointment solely because of a slow pace. there are serious issues ith the game...which haven't been touched upon. Kotaku did a similar piece and nailed why AC3 ****ed up and where it ****ed up.

I may disagree with them on a few points or a technicality here or there but they do echo my overall sentiments regarding how the game fell short.

And playing Dishonored and Hitman: Absolution in the same year only amplifies the flaws of AC3 and how it feels like a juvenile and shallow gameplay experience.

And M is right....any article being stern on AC3 will be welcomed by me. Since the forums are majorly composed of "lovers"...some criticisms from more professional and detached sources is just what we may need.

You do realize there is absolutely no point of criticizing ACIII on these forums, right? Everyone here will defend this game fiercely and violently if needs be because they are all fanboys that turns a blind eye on all the flaws of this game. So in correction to your ccomment, you should have said "I love ACIII, there are zero bugs and zero flaws with this game, and everyone that attacks ACIII is f**got"

Turul.
12-02-2012, 12:02 AM
i hate how ppl hate on the desmond story

it drives the entire series!

altair ezio and connor were merely conduets for a message, sure they have their own personal stuggles, but desmond combines all of them for a central purpose, and without that the series loses so much story and narrative and purpose. without it the characters have no cohesiveness and no purpose other than killing templars.

monster_rambo
12-02-2012, 12:05 AM
fixed

If you think a silent, monotone, and serious action character is "original" then you are dead wrong. Ezio is anything but cliche'.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 12:07 AM
You do realize there is absolutely no point of criticizing ACIII on these forums, right? Everyone here will defend this game fiercely and violently if needs be because they are all fanboys that turns a blind eye on all the flaws of this game. So in correction to your ccomment, you should have said "I love ACIII, there are zero bugs and zero flaws with this game, and everyone that attacks ACIII is f**got"
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9r8fetJjc1rvttv9.gif#.ULqNfqxX3yA
I`m not even sure you deserved the 2 minutes I wasted for this reply

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 12:08 AM
If you think a silent, monotone, and serious action character is "original" then you are dead wrong. Ezio is anything but cliche'.
Stop wasting seconds of my life to reply to your absurd posts

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 12:09 AM
The game sucked for them because IGN rushed through the main story, without any side missions just to write a review on the first day.

No. Reviewers receive advance copies to allow them to review a game thoroughly.

monster_rambo
12-02-2012, 12:13 AM
Stop wasting seconds of my life to reply to your absurd posts

And yet you did. Stop replying to absurd posts by replying with your own absurd posts.

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 12:15 AM
i hate how ppl hate on the desmond story

it drives the entire series!

altair ezio and connor were merely conduets for a message, sure they have their own personal stuggles, but desmond combines all of them for a central purpose, and without that the series loses so much story and narrative and purpose. without it the characters have no cohesiveness and no purpose other than killing templars.

I disagree.

If you didn't have a team in the modern day delving into memories, there wouldn't need to be a PoE in every single story. You could have a much greater variety in the plots because they wouldn't always have to come back to some First Civilisation thing every time. The stakes wouldn't always be omgomgomg endoftheworld, which is extremely restrictive.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 12:17 AM
And yet you did. Stop replying to absurd posts by replying with your own absurd posts.
Oh look I`m trying to sound smart by parroting other people`s words...

ACfan443
12-02-2012, 12:20 AM
The only thing I agreed with them was regarding the pacing issue...but overall a game just doesn't become the years biggest disappointment solely because of a slow pace. there are serious issues ith the game...which haven't been touched upon. Kotaku did a similar piece and nailed why AC3 ****ed up and where it ****ed up.

any article being stern on AC3 will be welcomed by me. Since the forums are majorly composed of "lovers"...some criticisms from more professional and detached sources is just what we may need.

I read that article by Kotaku, and found many points laughable. I may be a fan of the series, but in the past few weeks I've criticised it more than I've praised it. The article started off okay, then derailed into petty little complaints about how the map is "hard to read and navigate" and how rope-darting a guy onto a tree and using an enemy as a meat shield is "difficult to manage" -seriously? He goes on to make further comparisons to AC2 which are stupid, especially the bit about music etc. I don't completely love AC3, it has its imperfections. But from my genuinely unbiased view, I can't see how you think that article "nailed it"

monster_rambo
12-02-2012, 12:20 AM
Oh look I`m trying to sound smart by parroting other people`s words...

Thanks for the reply and please don't stop replying. There goes another of your 2 minutes.

Turul.
12-02-2012, 12:22 AM
Stale gameplay


youre kidding right? this is the best gameplay of the series BY FAR

Layytez
12-02-2012, 12:26 AM
In terms of the actually playing it the game is the best in the series. Story wise and pacing ? No. I didn't expect to play half of the sequences before I played with the guy on the cover. I expected AC3 to end like that because there will be no conclusive or massively satisfying ending aslong as they keep releasing games.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 12:31 AM
I`m SO glad I`m me right now...

Waka Waka wow

Lexax123
12-02-2012, 12:32 AM
AC3 may not be GOTY, but in a year of dissapointments, it is definitely one of the lesser ones. With games like Diablo 3, ME3, Resident Evil 6, Future Soldier, Guild Wars 2, Dishonored, Hitman Absolution, and even Halo 4 not living up to the ridiculous hype given to most of these games (doesn't mean they're bad) AC3 would be lucky to be nominated for this category.

TrueAssassin77
12-02-2012, 12:39 AM
assassin creed 3 is disappointing in some aspects... none of those ascpects were even explained in the video. thats why they are idiots

zerocooll21
12-02-2012, 12:41 AM
assassin creed 3 is disappointing in some aspects... none of those ascpects were even explained in the video. thats why they are idiots


+1 /end thread

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 12:43 AM
+1 /end thread
+2

bitebug2003
12-02-2012, 01:03 AM
Please stop the with the pointless and non-constructive posts.

Any more of it and this thread will be closed.

Thanks.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 01:04 AM
Please stop the with the pointless and non-constructive posts.

Any more of it and this thread will be closed.

Thanks.
Do you even know what +2 means ??? It means I agree with him too.. -_-

bitebug2003
12-02-2012, 01:08 AM
You are spamming this thread with pointless posts

Desist please!

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 01:11 AM
I realize that it's there- but they've managed to keep a lid on it... it's basically subtle enough where it doesn't punch you in the face. Altho, I just recently read some Emails from Shaun and had a convo w/ him outside the animus and it wasn't subtle at all.:nonchalance:

It's not a spoiler to say I know which email you mean, because it's the only time it'll happen. Only x% of people will ever read that, but it was a nice reminder of AC's willingness to challenge the audience at times.


I'm a strong advocate of Capitalism - it's just that like any system, it has its pitfalls, shortcomings and balances that get out whack and needs some sensible fine-tuning or regulation. Fair enough. But anything past that I think is a bad direction for any game to tread into imo.

Capitalism isn't incompatible with socialist ideas. Many capitalist systems incorporate publicly owned industries, state health services, state education, income support and so on. But if you were to look at the present day for the parts of society which are reminiscent of the fictional Templars, your mind would instantly go to the pharmaceutical giants – and it's no coincidence that in the game, Abstergo is one – and to the banks, and to all the world's CEOs who have mysteriously become more wealthy as the recession has worsened. It's ripe for narrative use, and there's no reason why that in particular should offend anyone's political sensitivities unless they are perfectly okay with the rich becoming as rich as they want to be, no matter how they did it.

Should we not attack political figures and/or parasitic billionaires in a game? Films and television have been ruffling feathers on that score since Citizen Kane, and not always by the nudge-wink caricature that so upset William Randolph Hearst . Many have attacked or involved specific, real figures of power in very unflattering ways. Books do it, even comics do it. I don't see why a game cannot. AC went so far as to put GWB and his cabinet as people manipulated by a Templar plot, while Al Gore was supported by the Templars. I can't help being disappointed about the sudden volte-face.

I don't see what makes games different from other media. One of the most impressive things about AC3 is how close they're getting to pulling games into the exact same area of entertainment as film and TV drama, and in a way I think that's part of their problem with the audience. The writing is of the same level as it ever was, but its clanging errors are exposed as the graphical fidelity improves. It can't just be "good writing for a game" anymore, and the dramatic standards need to stand without such kindly props.


One other point, at the beginning of the game, they post a 'disclaimer' of sorts that it's a multicultural team of people w/ various beliefs & faiths... if they want to hold true to that, they really shouldn't push one specific Political or religious agenda as I see it. They should stay more neutral or at least present the opposing (obvious) viewpoint.

I think that's more of a protection against criticism over religious aspects rather than a promise about ideology. Even at its most toothless, AC can never get away from favouring the poor versus the wealthy, and to millions of people that's already very offensive.

Fair & balanced and all that kind of thing ;)

Ha! Yeah, Fox News would definitely be Templars too ;)


If a game is good enough, alot of gamers can overlook things to enjoy the experience but if they want to beat people over the heads w/ one-sided political or religious attacks.... I would probly speak up about it. I just think it's unnecessary.to go that far into modern issues. But that's just me.

Well, other games will do that anyway. Navid Khonsari used to make GTA games and worked on the original Alan Wake, and he's now working on "1979" about the Iranian Revolution. It's impossible to tell that story properly without stepping on countless European and American toes. He's already confirmed that it will involve Iraq too, specifically the means by which Saddam Hussein was installed there. A lot of people are very worried, and say this kind of thing shouldn't be in a game, while very few people are batting an eyelid about CoD paying Oliver North for his wisdom or presenting Jonas Savimbi in the way it does.

I suspect in ten years' time, nobody will understand why Ubisoft thought it was too dangerous to continue with the line in ACB, but then again, if AC doesn't pursue any claim to relevance then it will probably disappear much sooner than that.

TrueAssassin77
12-02-2012, 01:13 AM
You are spamming this thread with pointless posts

Desist please!

... im confused. pointless is an opinion. and what does desist mean?

InfectedNation
12-02-2012, 01:21 AM
The guys in the video are nothing but morons honestly.

ACIII - OH MY GOD IT SUCKED BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SPRINTING AND KILLING PEOPLE FOR THE WHOLE GAME, INSTEAD THEY LET THIS STUPID "STORY" THING GET IN THE WAY!!!!

Black Ops II - Yeah it's so cool like shooting stuff and stuff blowing up and teamates dying and stuff, I love how fresh and new it was, Mmmmh Activision and Treyarch I loveyou mmmh yeah.

It's like they have such bad ADHD that cutscenes make them ragequit.

UrDeviant1
12-02-2012, 01:24 AM
I never even watched the video. That's how much I respect IGN's opinion.

jangotat205
12-02-2012, 01:25 AM
I played some Assassin's Creed demos but not a full game until I saw AC III advertised. I love American Revoluionary War history and when I saw a game in the era so I was excited and pre-ordered. A friend raved how good the series. After I preordered I played all previous games straight through then started AC III about a week after it came out. As far as how I rank the previous titles I say: AC II, AC I, Brotherhood, then Revelations. After AC II the games got a little worse but not terrible and still fun. Revelations made me feel claustrophobic. Like some others have said about 7 hours in, 5 sequences I get to play as Conner. I have to recheck the dates of the sequences but somehow he goes from a runt to linebacker in like a year or two. 18th century roids? And where is the Brotherhood? A Templer and an old dude living on the middle of nowhere. It's disjointed. I don't fully understand why the game play was changed. It's not a change for the better. I love the side quests in AC, rebuilding in AC II was great, Rome OK, AC III I got no clue how everything is linked together at 15 hours in now. The graphics have gotten better and worse. Better is easy to note but worse. Ugh, sloppy. Rember how the little things like Ezio's sword moving to where if would be when he kneels over a kill? Now it passes through his oufit and two feet into the ground. Trying to hunt or fight or run or climb I"m trying to look through freaking branches and leaves. Who QA's this game? Who approved it for release? Someone should be looking for a new job. I was talking the French dude last night in some tavern. Walked right through the table and stood in front of him. Would have been fun if I could slap the s*!+out of him. And he's my only recruit. Try to send him a mission and not allowed. Go save someone and get a new recruit, no clue where they run off too. The fictional history is OK but the wilderness killed me last night. I live a few miles from Valley Forge. I got excited when I saw it was in the game. So I'm tooling around the Concord wilderness, hop a fence and I'm magically 320 miles away in Valley Forge. It's the same **** graphics as the other areas but with some log cabins and fences. And there are families living there! WTF! The writes put a 1st graders effort, no wait I take that back because I knew more about Valley Forge in 1st grade than they did. I'm guessing our friends in MA can say the same thing. My opinion in regards to jumping from cut scence to cut scene and the side missions, AC has turned into a RPG. Tried some multiplayer. Didn't impress me one bit. Run in circles on small maps and kill other players. Eh, it's OK but nothing makes me want to run around for hours on end yet.

After giving my 2 pence I'm going to say I will finish the game and grin and bare it when needed. It's actually getting a little better but I want to get along with Desmond's story and find if we're all gonna die in 20 days! If we don't then I'll be getting for GOW3.

I hope you're reading these Ubi. You've done better, a lot bettter, please give AC the same fun level I still have Rainbox 6 and Splinter Cell.

Jexx21
12-02-2012, 01:26 AM
You are spamming this thread with pointless posts

Desist please!
Close the thread then, it's not gonna get any better.

ZephyrStrife
12-02-2012, 01:44 AM
If anything is going to get game of the year for 2012, its going to be Far Cry 3. AC3 while better than Revelations, doesn't exactly make people turn their heads and say "OMG, amazing!" I still love ya though, Connor. =P

montagemik
12-02-2012, 01:53 AM
I'm constantly surprised IGN is used for anything other than a place to BUY review scores by game developers.

Legendz54
12-02-2012, 02:17 AM
Its all a bunch of crap, why isn't call of duty in the video?

bitebug2003
12-02-2012, 02:18 AM
... im confused. pointless is an opinion. and what does desist mean?


'Pointless' as they contribute nothing to the thread

Desist - refrain.

Anyway matter is closed

Back on topic please.

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 02:28 AM
Its all a bunch of crap, why isn't call of duty in the video?

I only watched the first minutes when they talk about AC3, but maybe because they weren't disappointed by it? After all, CoD never sets its sights particularly high these days because they've got a winning formula and an audience that enjoys the familiarity. It does its job, like it or not.

They say, right at the start of the video, that they're not going to talk about games because they're straight up bad, necessarily, but ones that didn't quite turn out how they hoped. I don't know why this is going over people's heads; they cared enough about the game to be disappointed by some aspects of the result.

DarkDreamer95
12-02-2012, 02:55 AM
"The Animus bothers me, there's no reason for it"
"The Animus bothers me, there's no reason for it"
"The Animus bothers me, there's no reason for it"

Wow. No it's okay, some people play for the gameplay not the story. I'll try to watch the rest.

montagemik
12-02-2012, 03:20 AM
IGN Discuss the biggest dissapointments of 2012 - but clearly none of these 4 guys own a mirror .
I'd respect their opinions much more if they didn't all come across as 20-40 yr old virgins . Don't think i heard a single mention of technical aspects , it all just seemed like junior high recess discussion. Very informative - well done IGN.

Turul.
12-02-2012, 03:39 AM
IGN Discuss the biggest dissapointments of 2012 - but clearly none of these 4 guys own a mirror .
I'd respect their opinions much more if they didn't all come across as 20-40 yr old virgins . Don't think i heard a single mention of technical aspects , it all just seemed like junior high recess discussion. Very informative - well done IGN.

that's actually a very good explanation. they just went on how they felt parts of the series were unnecessary, they barely talked about why they were disappointed with ac3. the only real point they made was the pacing wasnt very good.

rupok2
12-02-2012, 04:16 AM
IGN Discuss the biggest dissapointments of 2012 - but clearly none of these 4 guys own a mirror .
I'd respect their opinions much more if they didn't all come across as 20-40 yr old virgins . Don't think i heard a single mention of technical aspects , it all just seemed like junior high recess discussion. Very informative - well done IGN.


I really don't think judging people based on looks and assumptions is very mature on your part. However I do agree that they seem to be very ignorant, I really doubt any of them actually played/ understood the previous games.

psf22
12-02-2012, 04:25 AM
Haven't been paying much attention to IGN ever since '07 anyways but... The nerve those jabronies had for Disgracing Metal Gear Solid and Assassins Creed like this?!

montagemik
12-02-2012, 04:35 AM
I really don't think judging people based on looks and assumptions is very mature on your part. However I do agree that they seem to be very ignorant, I really doubt any of them actually played/ understood the previous games.

I Didn't 'ASSUME' anything - i said that's how they come across ..........Not 'I THINK THEY ARE' - And you can think what you like about my opinions or maturity - I'm not being paid to give (supposedly) informed opinions or discussions.

kuled2012
12-02-2012, 11:31 AM
Haven't been paying much attention to IGN ever since '07 anyways but... The nerve those jabronies had for Disgracing Metal Gear Solid and Assassins Creed like this?!

I know right? I found it just plain stupid not to put MGS as one of the top 10 exclusives for the PS3. They're a bunch of idiots, We'd all do a better job at reviewing games.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 11:51 AM
The guys in the video are nothing but morons honestly.

ACIII - OH MY GOD IT SUCKED BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SPRINTING AND KILLING PEOPLE FOR THE WHOLE GAME, INSTEAD THEY LET THIS STUPID "STORY" THING GET IN THE WAY!!!!

Black Ops II - Yeah it's so cool like shooting stuff and stuff blowing up and teamates dying and stuff, I love how fresh and new it was, Mmmmh Activision and Treyarch I loveyou mmmh yeah.

It's like they have such bad ADHD that cutscenes make them ragequit.

Exactly. I shut it down after he went after the Animus as unnecessary. They had proven their points lacked credibility.
As if something being "unnecessary" makes it wrong to include in a game? How much stuff in most games in unnecessary?
I think having a bazillion guns in Borderlands is unnecessary too, let's attack Borderlands' pointlessness.

It's clear that some of them weren't fans of AC anyway... it's as if he couldn't wait to pick on AC3 out of the laundry list of serious disappointments of 2012. RE6/ORC being my top choice as it moved even further away from horror/survival and was SO sadly predictable.:nonchalance: Painful. I hope they stop catering to the Action crowd & go back to what made them famous.

Who are these guys? I have IGN on my FB and I'm seriously considering deleting their page from my feed if these 4 are prominent in that company.
II can't trust their reviewing at all after seeing some of that mess

MasterAssasin84
12-02-2012, 11:55 AM
I think IGN should seriously Retire , they are really begining to get on my tits !! what they perceive as a good game is contradictorary to most of the fans verdict .

Elite_scam
12-02-2012, 11:58 AM
Haha, the people around here...

MasterAssasin84
12-02-2012, 12:13 PM
Haha, the people around here...


The problem with IGN its as though they feel the need to speak for the fans when some of their evaluations are not backed with credible reasoning.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 12:28 PM
It's not a spoiler to say I know which email you mean, because it's the only time it'll happen. Only x% of people will ever read that, but it was a nice reminder of AC's willingness to challenge the audience at times.

Challenge the audience? Or shove ideology down people's throats?


Capitalism isn't incompatible with socialist ideas.
All I'll say is, Yep. But there are many examples of Socialism that are failing in Europe - eventually you do run out of other people's money.
And when that happens, you're in a worse mess and unable to pick yourself back up -at least w/ Capitalism you have the foundation to turn back and create more prosperity.

Should we not attack political figures and/or parasitic billionaires in a game?
Sure, they exist everywhere - but it's another beast entirely for a game Co. to paint them all as "Republicans" or "right wingers" etc. etc.
Get the difference? If you want to go down that path, how about Corrupt leftists? Assassins never go rogue or get greedy or kill people for personal issues? They don't exist?
Don't for one moment think they're exempt from the evil system you abhor - BOTH sides are in on it..
I realize it's convenient to pick a favorite side and pretend your hands are clean.

*one other point, AC is worldwide... I think limiting or focusing the agenda to American-based politics is very narrow-minded and a bad move. Not everyone is involved in Western politics or cares - and it shouldn't be biasly exploited thru a game as an agenda.

Films and television have been ruffling feathers on that score since Citizen Kane, and not always by the nudge-wink caricature that so upset William Randolph Hearst . Many have attacked or involved specific, real figures of power in very unflattering ways. Books do it, even comics do it. I don't see why a game cannot. AC went so far as to put GWB and his cabinet as people manipulated by a Templar plot, while Al Gore was supported by the Templars. I can't help being disappointed about the sudden volte-face.

And I have the ability to pick which movies I'll pay to see/buy or which I'll ignore. I'll go to an Underworld movie and happily skip Michael Moore's warped propaganda. It's that simple.
If AC wants to start advertising that they're the game world's next Michael Moore, you can have the game. Most of us game for an escape. It's mostly about gameplay not picking religious/political agenda's to force feed fans. If they want to turn to that, I'll most likely move on from the series - I don't necessarily want to support that with my hard-earned money either.


I don't see what makes games different from other media.
First off, I won't pay $40-$60 for other media. Secondly, gaming is a different element than simply being a spectator w/ Tv/movies & even books. You're technically immersed in that world, interacting with it. As I see it, you're on a deeper level and gaming at it's foundation is about FUN & enjoyment. (imo)

I think that's more of a protection against criticism over religious aspects rather than a promise about ideology. Even at its most toothless, AC can never get away from favouring the poor versus the wealthy, and to millions of people that's already very offensive.

Possibly or probably - but that isn't specified. I see it as an over-all disclaimer of sorts.

Ha! Yeah, Fox News would definitely be Templars too ;)
Don't make me hafta get out my Tomahawk
^(sorry, messed up the color coding lol)

Well, other games will do that anyway. Navid Khonsari used to make GTA games and worked on the original Alan Wake, and he's now working on "1979" about the Iranian Revolution. It's impossible to tell that story properly without stepping on countless European and American toes. He's already confirmed that it will involve Iraq too, specifically the means by which Saddam Hussein was installed there. A lot of people are very worried, and say this kind of thing shouldn't be in a game, while very few people are batting an eyelid about CoD paying Oliver North for his wisdom or presenting Jonas Savimbi in the way it does.
Sounds like a game I'd skip. Including some factual reality in games is fine and good.... but making it some huge glaring statement to force feed at gamers? No. I have no interest in being someone's propaganda puppet. I'm trying to enjoy a game and would appreciate not being offended or attacked. Don't slap me in the face and expect me to pay you for it. :mad:

I suspect in ten years' time, nobody will understand why Ubisoft thought it was too dangerous to continue with the line in ACB, but then again, if AC doesn't pursue any claim to relevance then it will probably disappear much sooner than that.
I suspect you're wrong there - the apathy and dumbing down of humanity is increasing at an alarming rate - I doubt they will think anything of the sort - esp. when most of them aren't as intent as you are on pushing a specific political agenda. Even I'm very politically active but I don't want it in my gaming!
I think it's more your interest than the majority. I believe the majority just want a good, entertaining AC game w/ a riveting story w/ substantial character building - not so much political/religious attacks on any side.
I think generalities work well enough for most games. Good vs. evil & all that fun stuff.
:D


(I'm not sure how this fits the topic tho...I don't think continuing is a good idea - we expressed our points evenly & can agree to disagree)
:)

Elite_scam
12-02-2012, 12:32 PM
(I'm not sure how this fits the topic tho...I don't think continuing is a good idea - we expressed our points evenly & can agree to disagree)
:)

:)

aaah, the ignorance and naivety...

It would be nice if we could live in naivety on this beautiful world, but it's not really smart to stay naive in this time and place.
You're getting ****ed without you even knowing it.

Elite_scam
12-02-2012, 12:40 PM
This was AC's symbolism, rather you like it or not.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoLUklf1NLc

pacmanate
12-02-2012, 12:41 PM
Looking at this as a bigger picture, I can see why it was one of the biggest disappointments. Mostly because this game was really hyped by Ubisoft. The story was okay, yet inconsistant. It also took too long to get to the main character which is also annoying for some people who want to replay the game from the start, but not go through 3 hours as Haytham. It is also disappointing in the fact that the ending was very anti climatic. I don't mind what happened in the ending, but they could have done it better, some farewell speeches between Desmond and his father etc. There are also a countless amount of bugs in this game which also hurts gameplay.

Don't get me wrong, I like AC3, but it didn't live up to the hype.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 01:10 PM
:)

aaah, the ignorance and naivety...

It would be nice if we could live in naivety on this beautiful world, but it's not really smart to stay naive in this time and place.
You're getting ****ed without you even knowing it.

Most EVERYONE is getting screwed without even knowing it - in the guise of betterment and evolving.... even those who think they're on the "right side".
I honestly don't know exactly what you're referring to w/ this statement but my point has been about overt vs. covert.
If a game wants to use subtle hints at their beliefs or agenda, that's one thing. But it's another if they want to 'come out of the closet' as it were and force-feed an open and obvious agenda; attaching all the 'evil' to one group they target.
Notice the wording on the video "Assassins Creed SECRET solved".

I'm fine if someone holds a different view or value than I do (heck, that's all over gaming in some of the social/moral values alone) - just don't openly throw political/religious propaganda in my face and expect me to smile and pay you for it. AC has essentially kept it on the sidelines where it should stay. A secret puzzle isn't throwing something in my face as far as I'm concerned.

But again, I'm not seeing how this fits the topic here ??

>>> Looking at this as a bigger picture, I can see why it was one of the biggest disappointments. Mostly because this game was really hyped by Ubisoft. The story was okay, yet inconsistant. It also took too long to get to the main character which is also annoying for some people who want to replay the game from the start, but not go through 3 hours as Haytham. It is also disappointing in the fact that the ending was very anti climatic. I don't mind what happened in the ending, but they could have done it better, some farewell speeches between Desmond and his father etc. There are also a countless amount of bugs in this game which also hurts gameplay.

Don't get me wrong, I like AC3, but it didn't live up to the hype. <<<

But every game company advertises w/ hype. No games live up to the CG movies they portray. AC should not be isolated for participating in the current industry standard - it's completely unfair.

MasterAssasin84
12-02-2012, 01:50 PM
Prodigurl i agree with everything you said in that statement - to Add to this i do not feel in anyway that Assassins Creed has force fed me any type of political agenda or Religious Doctrine i would rather say that Assassins Creed is informative above all else because the Creed does encourage the mind to be more open if you read into their beliefs but ubi have not in any way smothered the whole game with a hidden agenda.

Back on topic i also feel that that the last few posts have no relevence to this thread what so ever - the fact is IGN justify their evaluations with bad facts as this is not the first time i have seen a review that is way off the mark.

FirestarLuva
12-02-2012, 01:53 PM
The guys in the video are nothing but morons honestly.

ACIII - OH MY GOD IT SUCKED BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SPRINTING AND KILLING PEOPLE FOR THE WHOLE GAME, INSTEAD THEY LET THIS STUPID "STORY" THING GET IN THE WAY!!!!

Black Ops II - Yeah it's so cool like shooting stuff and stuff blowing up and teamates dying and stuff, I love how fresh and new it was, Mmmmh Activision and Treyarch I loveyou mmmh yeah.

It's like they have such bad ADHD that cutscenes make them ragequit.

I agree.

orangebionic
12-02-2012, 02:00 PM
It's not a spoiler to say I know which email you mean, because it's the only time it'll happen. Only x% of people will ever read that, but it was a nice reminder of AC's willingness to challenge the audience at times.



Capitalism isn't incompatible with socialist ideas. Many capitalist systems incorporate publicly owned industries, state health services, state education, income support and so on. But if you were to look at the present day for the parts of society which are reminiscent of the fictional Templars, your mind would instantly go to the pharmaceutical giants – and it's no coincidence that in the game, Abstergo is one – and to the banks, and to all the world's CEOs who have mysteriously become more wealthy as the recession has worsened. It's ripe for narrative use, and there's no reason why that in particular should offend anyone's political sensitivities unless they are perfectly okay with the rich becoming as rich as they want to be, no matter how they did it.

Should we not attack political figures and/or parasitic billionaires in a game? Films and television have been ruffling feathers on that score since Citizen Kane, and not always by the nudge-wink caricature that so upset William Randolph Hearst . Many have attacked or involved specific, real figures of power in very unflattering ways. Books do it, even comics do it. I don't see why a game cannot. AC went so far as to put GWB and his cabinet as people manipulated by a Templar plot, while Al Gore was supported by the Templars. I can't help being disappointed about the sudden volte-face.

I don't see what makes games different from other media. One of the most impressive things about AC3 is how close they're getting to pulling games into the exact same area of entertainment as film and TV drama, and in a way I think that's part of their problem with the audience. The writing is of the same level as it ever was, but its clanging errors are exposed as the graphical fidelity improves. It can't just be "good writing for a game" anymore, and the dramatic standards need to stand without such kindly props.



I think that's more of a protection against criticism over religious aspects rather than a promise about ideology. Even at its most toothless, AC can never get away from favouring the poor versus the wealthy, and to millions of people that's already very offensive.


Ha! Yeah, Fox News would definitely be Templars too ;)



Well, other games will do that anyway. Navid Khonsari used to make GTA games and worked on the original Alan Wake, and he's now working on "1979" about the Iranian Revolution. It's impossible to tell that story properly without stepping on countless European and American toes. He's already confirmed that it will involve Iraq too, specifically the means by which Saddam Hussein was installed there. A lot of people are very worried, and say this kind of thing shouldn't be in a game, while very few people are batting an eyelid about CoD paying Oliver North for his wisdom or presenting Jonas Savimbi in the way it does.

I suspect in ten years' time, nobody will understand why Ubisoft thought it was too dangerous to continue with the line in ACB, but then again, if AC doesn't pursue any claim to relevance then it will probably disappear much sooner than that.




I think thats great socio-political observation opportunity was being lost eventually in franchiseCapitalism has become a system of exploitation of the people on a global scale.Rich are getting rich, poor are pulled even lower into bigger poverty,and 90% of global weatlh is controlled by 2% of population- its almost begs to be used as a background of assasin-templars conflict, and it was insinuated in glyphs all over the previous part of the franchise, shame ubi chickened out and use instead TWCB evil member set free to threat mankind.

Part of the appeal of previous part of the franchise was adult, and challenging lore, an accurate comment on condition of world ,we are living( doesnt matter are agree with their thesis or not), its been lost when it went into simplicistic, naive storytelling, real case of mountain giving birth to the mouse.

But its not much about main discussion in this thread, noobs at ign couldnt even comprehend anything like that, all they care that the game isnt not some fast paced shoot-em-up.

MasterAssasin84
12-02-2012, 02:04 PM
I think thats great socio-political observation opportunity was being lost eventually in franchiseCapitalism has become a system of exploitation of the people on a global scale.Rich are getting rich, poor are pulled even lower into bigger poverty,and 90% of global weatlh is controlled by 2% of population- its almost begs to be used as a background of assasin-templars conflict, and it was insinuated in glyphs all over the previous part of the franchise, shame ubi chickened out and use instead TWCB evil member set free to threat mankind.

Part of the appeal of previous part of the franchise was adult, and challenging lore, an accurate comment on condition of world ,we are living( doesnt matter are agree with their thesis or not), its been lost when it went into simplicistic, naive storytelling, real case of mountain giving birth to the mouse.


But its not much about main discussion in this thread, noobs at ign couldnt even comprehend anything like that, all they care that the game isnt not some fast paced shoot-em-up.



I dont think IGN have the intelligence to read into a franchise such as Assassins Creed if its not a bombastic hollywood thrill seeking free for all then they are total ignorant to the gaming world as a whole.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 02:19 PM
I dont think IGN have the intelligence to read into a franchise such as Assassins Creed if its not a bombastic hollywood thrill seeking free for all then they are total ignorant to the gaming world as a whole.

Exactly - and I pray AC stays that way.... out of the norm. The way RE6/ORC went all Action hero....... enough to make me cry.
It's fine when a game is comprised of that, it's not fine when a game was created to be different and then wanders into the COD/action run-n-gun genre.
It's like you're losing good games to this tired old system.

We want a few games that are outside the box - something different to enjoy. At least that's how I see it. The idiots there on that panel are just begging AC to turn into AC COD
:mad: :nonchalance:

andreja110s
12-02-2012, 02:22 PM
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Facepalm+Colage.+Eeyup_40a9a2_3197505.gif

Go home, IGN, you´re drunk...


So, they don´t like the animus, the story, the gameplay,... Is there anything they like about this game?

MasterAssasin84
12-02-2012, 02:37 PM
Exactly - and I pray AC stays that way.... out of the norm. The way RE6/ORC went all Action hero....... enough to make me cry.
It's fine when a game is comprised of that, it's not fine when a game was created to be different and then wanders into the COD/action run-n-gun genre.
It's like you're losing good games to this tired old system.

We want a few games that are outside the box - something different to enjoy. At least that's how I see it. The idiots there on that panel are just begging AC to turn into AC COD
:mad: :nonchalance:

This is what alot of people fail to grasp, Assassins Creed is Fiction based on Historical fact mixed with pure science fiction. i have said all along how Assassins Creed is clever story telling.

The Animus Cracking open a subjects genetic Memories to relieve the lives of their ancestors to find ancient artifacts left bhind by the first civilisation is masterful, did you know i played through black ops 2 last week and it was the most predictable and uncompelling story telling i have ever come across, i just had a gut instinct as to who the traitors was and were the plot was going not forgetting the mindless running around bombs and guns bonanzer !! no to me that is not a game because it does not require a brain cell to play it.

Assassins Creed is totaly out the ordinary and i hope ubi continue with what they are doing because so far they have not dissapointed me, i think IGN's idiot drunken panel need to do their research more because these absolute clowns are totaly clueless !!

I hope someone from IGN is reading this because they need a reality check !!

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 03:09 PM
This is what alot of people fail to grasp, Assassins Creed is Fiction based on Historical fact mixed with pure science fiction. i have said all along how Assassins Creed is clever story telling.

The Animus Cracking open a subjects genetic Memories to relieve the lives of their ancestors to find ancient artifacts left bhind by the first civilisation is masterful, did you know i played through black ops 2 last week and it was the most predictable and uncompelling story telling i have ever come across, i just had a gut instinct as to who the traitors was and were the plot was going not forgetting the mindless running around bombs and guns bonanzer !! no to me that is not a game because it does not require a brain cell to play it.

Assassins Creed is totaly out the ordinary and i hope ubi continue with what they are doing because so far they have not dissapointed me, i think IGN's idiot drunken panel need to do their research more because these absolute clowns are totaly clueless !!

I hope someone from IGN is reading this because they need a reality check !!

I still plan to rent COD BO2 just to compare it & experience the game - I'm glad you rented it to get a first hand look so you aren't just blindly hating on a game.
I rented MW3 & at first, it was fun. But about 1 hour into it, I'm ready to turn it back in lol I can easily handle repetition but this is even beyond my capacity. I really think the COD stuff might be better for MP than SP (unlike AC which I feel is just the opposite).

To me, it doesn't matter whether you like or hate the Animus concept - it's still brilliant and like you mention, brings that Sci Fi element to the game. I was never a Desmond fan but hey, the concept is still great & if they put someone else inside the Animus that I really relate to or whatever, that would be more bonus.

FrankieSatt
12-02-2012, 03:26 PM
For me ACIII was the biggest dissapointment so far. I don't play as many games as others so based on what I have bought this year it is. Compared to previous AC game it's also the biggest dissapointment.

While it's still an enjoyable game, and a game that I'll end up replaying again at some point, this is the worst of the AC games. The whole story in this game wasn't very good, the ending just purely stunk, Connor was no where near the ancestor that Ezio was, the weapons were not as good nor the variety of them there, the whole economy system was way to complicated and not even explained in the game, the hunting seems monotonous.

The one bright part of the game was the naval part and that wasn't even explored to it's full potential.

Definitly the most disappointing game of 2012.

MasterAssasin84
12-02-2012, 03:53 PM
I still plan to rent COD BO2 just to compare it & experience the game - I'm glad you rented it to get a first hand look so you aren't just blindly hating on a game.
I rented MW3 & at first, it was fun. But about 1 hour into it, I'm ready to turn it back in lol I can easily handle repetition but this is even beyond my capacity. I really think the COD stuff might be better for MP than SP (unlike AC which I feel is just the opposite).

To me, it doesn't matter whether you like or hate the Animus concept - it's still brilliant and like you mention, brings that Sci Fi element to the game. I was never a Desmond fan but hey, the concept is still great & if they put someone else inside the Animus that I really relate to or whatever, that would be more bonus.

Well when i make a decision on a game i like to have first hand experience rather than going by hearsay, COD was fun when it was during MW2 but i feel activision are milking the series from a financial point of view, if Call of Duty had a complete new engine i would not have a problem with it.

Thats the one thing i cant fault with ubi , they was blissfully aware that a sequel should mean a sequel so i like the fact that they built AC3 from the ground up. i am aware that Anvil next is an upgrade from the original anvil but atleast they are keeping it fresh and appealing, and i dont know any games that have been to the locations AC has done.

if i i am not phased by a game i would judge based on reasnoble fact rather than just expectation.

kastrix
12-02-2012, 04:03 PM
Why do people get angry about people having their own opinion about a game? I dont hate on people who dislike legend of zelda. People today forgets that reviews are built on subjective opinions, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW.

If i wanted to give AC3 a 2/10 it and state reasons such as these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA7mnoeXe3I and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6516-Assassins-Creed-3. What would you're reason be to hate me?

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 04:13 PM
Why do people get angry about people having their own opinion about a game? I dont hate on people who dislike legend of zelda. People today forgets that reviews are built on subjective opinions, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW.

If i wanted to give AC3 a 2/10 it and state reasons such as these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA7mnoeXe3I and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6516-Assassins-Creed-3. What would you're reason be to hate me?

I think there is such a thing as an objective review - I can be very honest about what I dislike about AC3 that I think are valid criticisms. That's being objective, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm correct. It lacks free roam music (that's valid) and there were alot of bugs/glitches (valid).

In their attack of AC, they're not only ignoring very obvious disappointing games in 2012, their reasoning they give is obtuse. It sounds more like it's based on disliking the AC title as they prefer another genre.
They hate or find the animus unnecessary? That's not even valid. It's like saying Borderlands is most disappointing of 2012 for having too many pointless guns.

I think they had one valid issue which was taking too long to play as Connor/very slow beginning. Fine. Now does that make it most disappointing of 2012?
Hardly. It sounds like that 1 guy is a hater & then just rips it to shreds ignoring so many other games this year.

MasterAssasin84
12-02-2012, 04:17 PM
I think there is such a thing as an objective review - I can be very honest about what I dislike about AC3 that I think are valid criticisms. That's being objective, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm correct. It lacks free roam music (that's valid) and there were alot of bugs/glitches (valid).

In their attack of AC, they're not only ignoring very obvious disappointing games in 2012, their reasoning they give is obtuse. It sounds more like it's based on disliking the AC title as they prefer another genre.
They hate or find the animus unnecessary? That's not even valid. It's like saying Borderlands is most disappointing of 2012 for having too many pointless guns.

I think they had one valid issue which was taking too long to play as Connor/very slow beginning. Fine. Now does that make it most disappointing of 2012?
Hardly. It sounds like that 1 guy is a hater & then just rips it to shreds ignoring so many other games this year.

So Agreed !! :)

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 05:13 PM
I'M SORRY I'M SORRY

THERE WERE WORDS AND I AM LIKE A DOG WITH A BONE


Challenge the audience? Or shove ideology down people's throats?

If you're doing it properly, it's pretty much the same thing. They can dance around without making a statement, but that's neither sophisticated nor subtle; it's just a pretence of being smart.

The thing I find odd is that left wing statements are "shoving ideology down people's throats" while right-wing ideology is the norm. It becomes a problem when you want to do something that the white male right-wing heterosexual establishment doesn't like. Have you seen the eruptions that happen when people talk about women's rights in relation to games? Same-sex marriage? Racism? People get livid in the comments sections about these things, and it's remarkable to me that they protect the status quo without realising that these things wouldn't be so startling to them if the industry wasn't already bent so hard towards what they want.

It's against this background that AC began do what it did, and then quietly pretended it never happened.


All I'll say is, Yep. But there are many examples of Socialism that are failing in Europe - eventually you do run out of other people's money.
And when that happens, you're in a worse mess and unable to pick yourself back up -at least w/ Capitalism you have the foundation to turn back and create more prosperity.

First of all, not every country with an extensive social service is in trouble, and all hardline capitalist societies are in trouble. Why is that? How were these countries committing billions to their people ever competitive at all? It is the same worldwide recession which has struck us all, and countries with the least social protections have not been the shining beacons showing us how to get out. We're all in the same pit.

Secondly, capitalism is not the problem per se, and despite the outcry the games' lore didn't make capitalism itself the enemy. Adam Smith is not treated unsympathetically with the quotation from him, and there's a reason for that. True capitalism always talked about the importance of ensuring that your consumers can afford to buy the products you produce. A lot of modern capitalists don't care about the economic welfare of the lowest income groups, as long as they get richer, and they allow inequality to yawn ever wider because it's not that great a concern to them. When you hear a person say that 'there will always be winners and losers', that's a modern capitalist washing their hands of an old problem, and this is the issue.

Are you talking about Greece? Greece didn't fall because of socialism, it fell because of corruption. People bled the country dry through crimes for which laws existed to prosecute the perpetrators. I will grant you this – once the economy had tanked, the subsequent deadlock created its own problems, when people felt they had to make bottom-line demands and the government felt it could not honour those arrangements, but that's a separate and much more complex issue.

Are you talking about the UK, where I live? We didn't go into recession because we have a health service. You can blame Labour's Gordon Brown for that, who added the last big chunk of de-regulation that the banks wanted, right before they screwed us all. If he'd left those protections in place, we'd have been set even with our massive NHS, but the combination of the banking crisis and two wars was too much. Now we have a Tory-led government, which we didn't elect, that is behaving as though it has a mandate to do dramatic things: shrinking our public services and selling them off, just like they did in the 1980s. This leaves us hamstrung, waiting for conditions to change. Regardless of political position, all governments will increase borrowing in the face of a recession, but a government which has sold its public services cannot use its position as an employer and producer to energise the economy by deciding, for example, to build infrastructure and thus turn a profit from its borrowing.

To call it "other people's money" as though there's something dirty about that is depressing to me. I'm proud of what our wealth as a nation can do, versus how life was for my grandparents. One of my closest friends had twin sons born prematurely. It would be cruel in the extreme to expect him to shoulder that financial burden alone, as the bill would have been around $2m in the US. Thankfully here, our money saved them and made sure that the boys' parents would not be financially crippled by the costs of his healthcare (and of course, child care costs for twins are plenty). The US knows this too. What was healthcare insurance, other than 'other people's money'? The difference was that it was inadequate because you had private companies in the mix, all trying to make a profit at the expense of many sick people who ended up not receiving treatment.



Sure, they exist everywhere - but it's another beast entirely for a game Co. to paint them all as "Republicans" or "right wingers" etc. etc.
Get the difference? If you want to go down that path, how about Corrupt leftists? Assassins never go rogue or get greedy or kill people for personal issues? They don't exist?
Don't for one moment think they're exempt from the evil system you abhor - BOTH sides are in on it..
I realize it's convenient to pick a favorite side and pretend your hands are clean.

*one other point, AC is worldwide... I think limiting or focusing the agenda to American-based politics is very narrow-minded and a bad move. Not everyone is involved in Western politics or cares - and it shouldn't be biasly exploited thru a game as an agenda.

I will quite happily go down the road of corrupt leftists (and as you saw above, I blame Brown for what happened in the UK). Corruption should be the issue, no doubt. Sometimes it's a banal and passive evil, sometimes something more aggressive.

I don't understand why you keep saying that all of this stuff was limited to American politics. I keep telling you that the framework they were talking about was worldwide. Only a small proportion of those names I picked out were from the US. If you ever play the games again, look at the photos and the text; the US is only a portion of that. I don't know how you can have missed that in the games, unless you simply didn't recognise all those people or know what they did, or unless criticism of your own country hurts more and thus appears out of proportion to you.



And I have the ability to pick which movies I'll pay to see/buy or which I'll ignore. I'll go to an Underworld movie and happily skip Michael Moore's warped propaganda. It's that simple.
If AC wants to start advertising that they're the game world's next Michael Moore, you can have the game. Most of us game for an escape. It's mostly about gameplay not picking religious/political agenda's to force feed fans. If they want to turn to that, I'll most likely move on from the series - I don't necessarily want to support that with my hard-earned money either.

Indeed you can choose, and I'm sure that's why the backpedalling happened. I don't think they were necessarily up to anything Michael Moore-ish, nor were they necessarily seeking to change people's minds. I think it was more a case of looking at history, and then recent history, and thinking, "Where's the story here, as it relates to our Templar/Assassin enmity?". It's the same thinking that produced "24", with a different outcome. I've enjoyed a ton of games and films which do the "24" thing, because I find it quite easy to separate what I think from what the artist thinks. You played AC1, where Assassins were right outside the window committing an immense terrorist attack in a major city with machine guns and explosives, and you kept on playing.

Just as the problems of corruption are both an issue for the right and left, I'm not sure that anybody could have an objection to an AC storyline which drew in the banks (other than possibly bankers). I think it would have been quite easy to introduce modern top-level corruption into AC's world, and it could have been interesting on moral grounds too. We've been running around in the past solving all the world's problems with a knife in the neck, but that wouldn't fly in a place we think of as home. We would have to think about seeking non-violent justice for the perpetrators, and in doing so, who would we go to in order to make that happen?

I would prefer that continuation into the modern day instead of the robes and lights and Lala-land.


First off, I won't pay $40-$60 for other media. Secondly, gaming is a different element than simply being a spectator w/ Tv/movies & even books. You're technically immersed in that world, interacting with it. As I see it, you're on a deeper level and gaming at it's foundation is about FUN & enjoyment. (imo)

That ship sailed some time ago, didn't it? Games have been dealing with real-world related issues for some time, and that's all snowballing as the graphical representation improves.

The best and most important part of this is that the medium is better suited towards communicating emotions. AC3 is showing how vital that's going to be: where the writing shines, the scenes are noticeably unlike games of even two years ago, and where the writing fails to support the tech it is glaringly apparent. However, politics and social issues are not going to stay out of games. Yes, you pay X amount for them, but if games are going to march into TV's territory then inevitably they're going to have to adopt a lot of the things that TV trades on presently – as they already are: the plots, the actors, the direction. There will always be a majority of games that don't touch on education or social commentary, just as the majority of TV gives it a wide berth right now, so you'll always have the choice.


I suspect you're wrong there - the apathy and dumbing down of humanity is increasing at an alarming rate - I doubt they will think anything of the sort - esp. when most of them aren't as intent as you are on pushing a specific political agenda. Even I'm very politically active but I don't want it in my gaming!
I think it's more your interest than the majority. I believe the majority just want a good, entertaining AC game w/ a riveting story w/ substantial character building - not so much political/religious attacks on any side.
I think generalities work well enough for most games. Good vs. evil & all that fun stuff.

http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120411.419/images/smilies/biggrin.png

Oh yes, I fully accept that. The minds behind ACII and ACB teased something that had enormous potential, and I know that the majority won't be interested in that. If a clear majority was known to want it, it would still be there, which only makes it all the more puzzling that it ever went in at all.. Many of the people younger than me won't even know who Mossadegh or Allende were, but ignorance is not the same thing as apathy or antipathy. I'm not sure if that majority would actively not want whatever the next stage of that would have been, because that's a much tougher question to answer; we'll never know.

I don't think AC wants plain old "good and evil" either! Maybe they don't want to become Star Wars, with a simple binary morality. Something's got to give during the next games in the series, I guess. If the narrative can't give me anything more stimulating than "You think WE are the bad guys, but maybe it is YOU who is the bad guy!" over and over again, then maybe it'll be me leaving the games behind :)

Dishonored's been given a sequel, so it'll be interesting to see how/if that influences AC.

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 05:23 PM
This is what alot of people fail to grasp, Assassins Creed is Fiction based on Historical fact mixed with pure science fiction. i have said all along how Assassins Creed is clever story telling.


Many of the kings and queens of sci-fi writing would be quick to say that sci-fi is at its best when it reflects something about the issues of the present day. It can be pure escapism, of course, but the biggest things don't manage to stray too far from who were are. Not even Star Wars.

Some people think Blade Runner is a film about a detective who shoots robots, and that's fine, but they're wrong.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 06:43 PM
Many of the kings and queens of sci-fi writing would be quick to say that sci-fi is at its best when it reflects something about the issues of the present day. It can be pure escapism, of course, but the biggest things don't manage to stray too far from who were are. Not even Star Wars.

Some people think Blade Runner is a film about a detective who shoots robots, and that's fine, but they're wrong.

Well it is a film about a detective that takes out rogue robots - anything underneath that is "hidden" and that's pretty much the point. Plus, if I don't know what the hidden meaning is, it really doesn't matter what their actual intent is if it goes over my head, does it? Kinda like those old MTV videos. I used to laugh at that, you'd hear the artists explaining what their video actually meant & you're all 'huh? I thought some guy just found the love of his life' when it was really about the life and death struggle of non union employees. lol
j/k - my coffee kicked in - time to go play some ACIII. :)

Auditore8
12-02-2012, 06:51 PM
I think AC3 was judged too harshly. Sure, it didn't live up to every single expectation that we had but it's not a disappointing game, nor a bad game. PC Gamer said that AC3 brings down the entire Assassin's Creed series, I find that harsh, and the review spends 4 paragraphs whining about chasing Hickey through New York because it was "Not clear whether to kill or capture the target" even when the author stated the game told him to Tackle Hickey. The reviews are ridiculous, and biased. Call Of Duty is the same game every single year, and IGN gave Black Ops 2 and 9.3. AC3 was something completely new to games, and sure it had some faults but it deserves better than an 8.5 and top spot on the list of Most Disappointing Games of 2012

playassassins1
12-02-2012, 07:31 PM
I think AC3 was judged too harshly. Sure, it didn't live up to every single expectation that we had but it's not a disappointing game, nor a bad game. PC Gamer said that AC3 brings down the entire Assassin's Creed series, I find that harsh, and the review spends 4 paragraphs whining about chasing Hickey through New York because it was "Not clear whether to kill or capture the target" even when the author stated the game told him to Tackle Hickey. The reviews are ridiculous, and biased. Call Of Duty is the same game every single year, and IGN gave Black Ops 2 and 9.3. AC3 was something completely new to games, and sure it had some faults but it deserves better than an 8.5 and top spot on the list of Most Disappointing Games of 2012

This... This a 1000 times...

Jay_2750
12-02-2012, 07:31 PM
"And the Animus there is no reason for it."
LMAO!
IGN are so stupid.

xboxauditore
12-02-2012, 07:35 PM
"And the Animus there is no reason for it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Oh IGN, The Animus isn't stupid. YOU. ARE.

Jay_2750
12-02-2012, 07:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Oh IGN, The Animus isn't stupid. YOU. ARE.
Lol. xD

shobhit7777777
12-02-2012, 07:37 PM
I read that article by Kotaku, and found many points laughable. I may be a fan of the series, but in the past few weeks I've criticised it more than I've praised it. The article started off okay, then derailed into petty little complaints about how the map is "hard to read and navigate" and how rope-darting a guy onto a tree and using an enemy as a meat shield is "difficult to manage" -seriously? He goes on to make further comparisons to AC2 which are stupid, especially the bit about music etc. I don't completely love AC3, it has its imperfections. But from my genuinely unbiased view, I can't see how you think that article "nailed it"

He also pointed out the mission design flaws, the linear structure and the broken stealth mechanics IIRC. So yeah...IMO, he nailed it.

Its a poorly designed game. It doesn't reach it's full potential in any aspect and is an experiment in banality. Of course it has its great elements...which are present in any AC game....but this game has been hugely disappointing. Ill just make do with Farcry 3 and Hitman till AC4 comes out

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 07:42 PM
He also pointed out the mission design flaws, the linear structure and the broken stealth mechanics IIRC. So yeah...IMO, he nailed it.

Its a poorly designed game. It doesn't reach it's full potential in any aspect and is an experiment in banality. Of course it has its great elements...which are present in any AC game....but this game has been hugely disappointing. Ill just make do with Farcry 3 and Hitman till AC4 comes out
Heh....Hitman...If there`s ANY disappointment in 2012 for me..It`s that I spent 60 dollars on that game..

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 07:49 PM
Heh....Hitman...If there`s ANY disappointment in 2012 for me..It`s that I spent 60 dollars on that game..
Is it really that bad?

shobhit7777777
12-02-2012, 08:05 PM
Heh....Hitman...If there`s ANY disappointment in 2012 for me..It`s that I spent 60 dollars on that game..

Thats regret, son...not disappointment. You're welcome


Is it really that bad?

It has the community divided. Depends on you. IMO its a fantastic game which really improves the core formula and retains freshness. If you like stealth games and games which are more cerebral then pick it up. It's not flawless but it certainly is a damm fine game.

Oh and back OT: AC3 was disappointing

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 08:07 PM
Thats regret, son...not disappointment. You're welcome



It has the community divided. Depends on you. IMO its a fantastic game which really improves the core formula and retains freshness. If you like stealth games and games which are more cerebral then pick it up. It's not flawless but it certainly is a damm fine game.

Oh and back OT: AC3 was disappointing
And that's exactly how I feel about AC3. Sure a lot of people were disappointed because of ridiculous expectations, but if you can look past the annoying things, you've got a great game in your hands

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 08:10 PM
Well it is a film about a detective that takes out rogue robots - anything underneath that is "hidden" and that's pretty much the point. Plus, if I don't know what the hidden meaning is, it really doesn't matter what their actual intent is if it goes over my head, does it? Kinda like those old MTV videos. I used to laugh at that, you'd hear the artists explaining what their video actually meant & you're all 'huh? I thought some guy just found the love of his life' when it was really about the life and death struggle of non union employees. lol
j/k - my coffee kicked in - time to go play some ACIII. :)

:)

Shooting robots is what happens, but it's not what it's about. It's about what it means to be human, and the truth of emotions. There are lots of questions that arise from watching it.

If you met a robot which believed itself to experience emotions, would you be acting immorally if you hurt its feelings? What if you killed it? If we create such a robot, what would a human's responsibility towards that robot be? What are our responsibilities as parents? What is the responsibility of a god? Do you earn superior value by comparison to others as a sentient being, and if so is it innately part of being a biological creature, or is it a product of your decisions? Would you achieve more in life if you took death more seriously, like Roy has to do? What if you discovered you were artificial; how would this affect you, and should it? Is there such a thing as a soul, or even a personality, or are all these things just constructs?

These are the themes haunting Blade Runner. You're right that don't have to take them on board in order to enjoy the film, but they are the reason the story has more resonance than a straight kill list movie and that's why it's still valued today, and will continue to be important to audiences years from now. Fritz Lang's Metropolis was a reaction to the sudden emergence of skyscrapers in New York and the beginnings of industrial science, and it revolves around a divide between an intellectual class and a working class. It was made in the 1920s, and people are still interested in it today.

The same goes for Dracula and Nosferatu. They're monster movies, but their power then and today rests on other things. The vampire is not just a monster but a foreign monster, and Nosferatu has the claws and hooked nose of the racist newspaper cartoons of Jews in that era. This might be unintentional on the part of the creators but, deliberate or not, it certainly helped to make the vampire scarier to its white audiences. It's also not so much about the drinking of blood but the fear of infectious diseases, and as long as those things scare us, so will the vampire. Tolkein talked about how his Middle Earth stories were about Europe: the Shire as a perfect England, versus the dark forces massing abroad. Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast stories were an interpretation of the places he visited as a soldier.

Game worlds often seem a bit hollow to me. Halo and Mass Effect don't interest me at all, because I can't find their core, their spirit. Assassin's Creed would be greatly improved if it figured out how to hook itself to "now". Sometimes a story has that thing by accident, but in other cases it needs to be injected. AC is not set in a parallel world or a complete fantasy environment, so it's pretty much duty bound to try and integrate itself with our real lives. It doesn't have to be a political thing, but at the very least it should attempt to form an underlying allegory to say something about human experience: our hopes, or our fears.

shobhit7777777
12-02-2012, 08:15 PM
And that's exactly how I feel about AC3. Sure a lot of people were disappointed because of ridiculous expectations, but if you can look past the annoying things, you've got a great game in your hands

Unfortunately unlike Hitman...where even the flaws are so minute when compared to the overall game and where the basic design is sound and evolutionary, AC3 just doesn't cut it. The flaws are huge and outweigh any "good" the game does...

Also unlike hitman which has made some serious improvements to the core gameplay pillars...actual steps forward on terms of gameplay and design AC3 does nothing of the sort apart from a few things here and there.

the sheer amount of gameplay options and emergent gameplay moments in Hitman trumps anything AC3 has to offer....and ther lies the beauty of Hitman and also the difference between a great assassin game and a disappointing one...and just to be clear AC3 is the latter

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 08:16 PM
Unfortunately unlike Hitman...where even the flaws are so minute when compared to the overall game and where the basic design is sound and evolutionary, AC3 just doesn't cut it. The flaws are huge and outweigh any "good" the game does...

Also unlike hitman which has made some serious improvements to the core gameplay pillars...actual steps forward on terms of gameplay and design AC3 does nothing of the sort apart from a few things here and there.

the sheer amount of gameplay options and emergent gameplay moments in Hitman trumps anything AC3 has to offer....and ther lies the beauty of Hitman and also the difference between a great assassin game and a disappointing one...and just to be clear AC3 is the latter
Well, everyone has their own opinions, and I respect yours

shobhit7777777
12-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Well, everyone has their own opinions, and I respect yours

And I reciprocate. Good day, reasonable and open minded sir. I don't enjoy playing AC3 but I'm glad you do.
:)

FrankieSatt
12-02-2012, 09:25 PM
I think AC3 was judged too harshly. Sure, it didn't live up to every single expectation that we had but it's not a disappointing game, nor a bad game. PC Gamer said that AC3 brings down the entire Assassin's Creed series, I find that harsh, and the review spends 4 paragraphs whining about chasing Hickey through New York because it was "Not clear whether to kill or capture the target" even when the author stated the game told him to Tackle Hickey. The reviews are ridiculous, and biased. Call Of Duty is the same game every single year, and IGN gave Black Ops 2 and 9.3. AC3 was something completely new to games, and sure it had some faults but it deserves better than an 8.5 and top spot on the list of Most Disappointing Games of 2012

I don't find it harsh at all. I agree that AC3 brings down the whole series. This was my one fear about the game that I hoped wouldn't happen. I said when they came out with Brotherhood and then Revelations that the dev team was extending the series way to much and that this might happen. I thought that with a new AC game theywould actually avoid that but after playing it they didn't avoid it. Chasing Hickey through New York was just tremendously annoying, as was most of the chases.

My score of ACIII is 6.5 or maybe 7. That's about it. Compared to ACII which I would give a 9.5 and ACI which I would give an 8.5 and Brotherhood and Revelations which I would give both an 8.

ACIII is the worst of the series and it most definitly drags down the series as a whole, which more AC games will end up doing.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 09:53 PM
ACIII is the worst of the series and it most definitly drags down the series as a whole, which more AC games will end up doing.
definitely*

Just sayin`

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 10:00 PM
LoL @ xboxauditore link. :D

I had read alot of reviews on Hitman & people definitely have issues with it - sounds like the previous Blood Money game might be a better choice.
I have Far Cry 3 on my Cmas list. I loved that crazy first one.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 10:11 PM
LoL @ xboxauditore link. :D

I had read alot of reviews on Hitman & people definitely have issues with it - sounds like the previous Blood Money game might be a better choice.
I have Far Cry 3 on my Cmas list. I loved that crazy first one.
The thing with Hitman: Absolution is that it did not feel like a Hitman game anymore for me. Blood Money was the best representation of a stealth game. perfection and balance. Absolution just did not do that for me. Sure it adds more stealth elements, but it polluted the original formula that I loved, I can`t quite explain it thoroughly. The Story felt EXTREMELY dull and nothing pushed me to continue, but my love for the Hitman Franchise.

mashroot
12-02-2012, 10:26 PM
It is a biased review, because AC3 is seriously decent, and while it has a few flaws, it is still one of the best games of 2012, and it could still be a GOTY. The real biggest disappointment of 2012 is hands down Prototype 2, and it is so bad that people were posting death threats on the Prototype 2 Facebook wall, and the developing company was fired 1 month after it's release for poor game sales despite the exorbitant amount of money they spent on advertising.

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 10:32 PM
It is a biased review, because AC3 is seriously decent, and while it has a few flaws, it is still one of the best games of 2012, and it could still be a GOTY. The real biggest disappointment of 2012 is hands down Prototype 2, and it is so bad that people were posting death threats on the Prototype 2 Facebook wall, and the developing company was fired 1 month after it's release for poor game sales despite the exorbitant amount of money they spent on advertising.

As they said at the beginning of this video, the conversation is not about picking the worst games but the biggest disappointments. Expectations weren't remotely as high for Prototype 2 as they were for AC3. I don't think many people would argue that AC3 should be among the better games of 2012, but there were other games I could recommend more easily without so many qualifications.

It's not a biased review simply because they've got negative criticisms. I've got a list, but I'm not biased against AC.

FirestarLuva
12-02-2012, 10:32 PM
I don't think AC3 has that much hate from the fans or reviewers. Some people just see IGN as so godly if a game receives a low rating from them - burn it with fire!
Compared to games like Diablo 3 or Mass Effect 3 (not that I hate these games, love both of them), who have received a lot of hate, AC3 has decent ratings, compared to other games that were dubbed 'disappointing', it's great. Definetly not a let down, it has it's flaws, but no game is perfect. Even AC2 has its haters, so no AC game today can be crowned flawless in my opinion, everyone hates something, there's no AC protagonist who has received only hate or love, so there's always been mixed opinions on everything in AC and it will stay that way, but at least the majority of them are positive.
Man, I miss the good old days of gaming, when people and game reviewers weren't so nitpicky or over-hyped about games. Today, it's a miracle to see a positive review about a game. People ask too much and don't appreciate what they have in my opinion. :/ It's hard to enjoy a game today with so many ***gots like IGN and narrow-minded people who just troll and nitpick at every minor flaw in a game just to hate on it going around.
Oh, and a note to IGN, stop hating on AC3! It's not Ubi's fault you got over-excited. If IGN expected a perfect game, they seriously need to go outside for a bit and realise nothing is perfect in the world, there will always be bad things and you'll need to learn to live with them. "Life is not a fairy tale and there are no happy endings" Something meaningful and important that AC3 delivered with Connor that dumb IGN missed it. The game, though at times glitchy, delivers a very important message, not 'Freedom is awesome' as some people say. DX

Also, if AC3 was such a letdown, why would it get so many votes at the g4tv best game of 2012 competition, where the best game is decided on the viewer's votes? I doubt all those people who voted AC3 were on weed when they did it. http://www.g4tv.com/vgdm/best-game-2012

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 10:34 PM
Just looking at the like/dislike rate of that Video, it`s easy to know that Not everyone agrees with IGN..

Top Comments

"Man, whatever happened to enjoying games? Why have games journalists become stuck up snobs complaining about everything? I get so surprised when I see a positive review, at this point. I also always try to have almost no expectation, because then Im left with what I experienced, not what I wanted or wished to have experienced. I have had an excellent time with this years games, and the only thing ruining the year for me are the whiny snobs."


"Its IGN that have become the biggest disappoint of the year for me. They are rapidly declining, Most of their articles are pointless and they barely tell the news just report on speculation, not facts. Their reviews are inconsistent."

TrueAssassin77
12-02-2012, 10:38 PM
prototype to isn't a disappointment to me. i always knew it was gonna be a fail.... it was obvious. very... people actually had high hopes for that game?!

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 10:42 PM
I don't think AC3 has that much hate from the fans or reviewers. Some people just see IGN as so godly if a game receives a low rating from them - burn it with fire!
Compared to games like Diablo 3 or Mass Effect 3 (not that I hate these games, love both of them), who have received a lot of hate, AC3 has decent ratings, compared to other games that were dubbed 'disappointing', it's great. Definetly not a let down, it has it's flaws, but no game is perfect. Even AC2 has its haters, so no AC game today can be crowned flawless in my opinion, everyone hates something, there's no AC protagonist who has received only hate or love, so there's always been mixed opinions on everything in AC and it will stay that way, but at least the majority of them are positive.
Man, I miss the good old days of gaming, when people and game reviewers weren't so nitpicky or over-hyped about games. Today, it's a miracle to see a positive review about a game. People ask too much and don't appreciate what they have in my opinion. :/ It's hard to enjoy a game today with so many ***gots like IGN and narrow-minded people who just troll and nitpick at every minor flaw in a game just to hate on it going around.
Oh, and a note to IGN, stop hating on AC3! It's not Ubi's fault you got over-excited. If IGN expected a perfect game, they seriously need to go outside for a bit and realise nothing is perfect in the world, there will always be bad things and you'll need to learn to live with them. "Life is not a fairy tale and there are no happy endings" Something meaningful and important that AC3 delivered with Connor that dumb IGN missed it. The game, though at times glitchy, delivers a very important message, not 'Freedom is awesome' as some people say. DX

Funny you should accuse anyone of narrow-mindedness right after the automod caught your homophobic jibe, but okay...

Do you really think positive reviews are rare? If anything they're too positive. So many sites have a 1 to 10 (or 100) scale and rarely use anything under a 7 (or 70), but thankfully that's beginning to change. Gamespot's getting a backbone at last, PC Gamer's becoming a bit more tough, and I think that's good.

I'd like to see Kotaku's system adopted throughout the games media. They pose the question, "Should You Buy This Game?" and then answer Yes, No or Not Yet. That means you've got to read the review to find out how positive a "yes" it is, or if they advise you to hold off for now then you need to read it to find out why. All of this stuff with scores results in weirdness: people dredging up the score for the last game in the series and insisting the new one should score higher, or comparing the score to the one given for the last CoD, or absolutely losing their excrement over the difference between 7.5 and an 8.0.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 10:54 PM
It is a biased review, because AC3 is seriously decent, and while it has a few flaws, it is still one of the best games of 2012, and it could still be a GOTY. The real biggest disappointment of 2012 is hands down Prototype 2, and it is so bad that people were posting death threats on the Prototype 2 Facebook wall, and the developing company was fired 1 month after it's release for poor game sales despite the exorbitant amount of money they spent on advertising.

I didn't hear anything about that! :-0 I actually liked that game lol (what little of it I played when I rented it).


Just looking at the like/dislike rate of that Video, it`s easy to know that Not everyone agrees with IGN..

Top Comments

"Man, whatever happened to enjoying games? Why have games journalists become stuck up snobs complaining about everything? I get so surprised when I see a positive review, at this point. I also always try to have almost no expectation, because then Im left with what I experienced, not what I wanted or wished to have experienced. I have had an excellent time with this years games, and the only thing ruining the year for me are the whiny snobs."


"Its IGN that have become the biggest disappoint of the year for me. They are rapidly declining, Most of their articles are pointless and they barely tell the news just report on speculation, not facts. Their reviews are inconsistent."

I don't follow much of IGN at all but after seeing this little huddle of haters, I'm even less inclined to put any credibility into their reviews or commentary. It was just totally undeserving and amateur! I expect this sort of analysis from general gamers.


I don't think AC3 has that much hate from the fans or reviewers. Some people just see IGN as so godly if a game receives a low rating from them - burn it with fire!
Compared to games like Diablo 3 or Mass Effect 3 (not that I hate these games, love both of them), who have received a lot of hate, AC3 has decent ratings, compared to other games that were dubbed 'disappointing', it's great. Definetly not a let down, it has it's flaws, but no game is perfect. Even AC2 has its haters, so no AC game today can be crowned flawless in my opinion, everyone hates something, there's no AC protagonist who has received only hate or love, so there's always been mixed opinions on everything in AC and it will stay that way, but at least the majority of them are positive.

Man, I miss the good old days of gaming, when people and game reviewers weren't so nitpicky or over-hyped about games. Today, it's a miracle to see a positive review about a game. People ask too much and don't appreciate what they have in my opinion. :/ It's hard to enjoy a game today with so many ***gots like IGN and narrow-minded people who just troll and nitpick at every minor flaw in a game just to hate on it going around.
Oh, and a note to IGN, stop hating on AC3! It's not Ubi's fault you got over-excited. If IGN expected a perfect game, they seriously need to go outside for a bit and realise nothing is perfect in the world, there will always be bad things and you'll need to learn to live with them. "Life is not a fairy tale and there are no happy endings" Something meaningful and important that AC3 delivered with Connor that dumb IGN missed it. The game, though at times glitchy, delivers a very important message, not 'Freedom is awesome' as some people say. DX

Also, if AC3 was such a letdown, why would it get so many votes at the g4tv best game of 2012 competition, where the best game is decided on the viewer's votes? I doubt all those people who voted AC3 were on weed when they did it. http://www.g4tv.com/vgdm/best-game-2012

I totally agree with you. I've been gaming since the early PC & Nintendo days with the first Zelda - what they've been able to accomplish w/ video games is just breathtaking.
People take so much for granted and I doubt they realize what all it takes to put a good game out and it's not cheap. They release a game and picked to a living death. Sure some games really do blow, but not this many.
I still think most of the gaming community is spoiled and alot feel far too entitled. I dunno - it's probly alot more than that but I'm just as disappointed in the gaming community as they are the games they complain about anymore.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2012, 10:57 PM
>> Gamespot's getting a backbone at last, <<

I've always liked Gamespot, I like their site alot.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 11:02 PM
The only people I met who truly appreciated what AC III was were Game designers. My Social Circle consists of those at College, Professors or those who are already working in the industry. If you`d listen to one of our many Conversations, you`d think we`re the professionals and those in the video were just angry high school juniors.

I found no trace of Professionalism in that whole video AT ALL. How are these Journalists ?? Are they even supposed to do this ?? I`v no problem with criticism and I`v shown this numerous times, but that video is just sad..

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 11:05 PM
I don't believe in game reviews anymore. People like and play whatever games they want to, it doesn't matter what the reviewers think. There could be a gamer who hates Red Dead Redemption and loves Prototype and I wouldn't care. Sure, pretty much everyone would disagree, but that's his opinion. Same with me, my favourite games this year were AC3 and Darksiders 2, and the critics didn't really love those games. Do I care? no. i play those games because I find them fun and it's what I like. that is all.

XxFEARLESSEINxX
12-02-2012, 11:07 PM
The only people I met who truly appreciated what AC III was were Game designers. My Social Circle consists of those at College, Professors or those who are already working in the industry. If you`d listen to one of our many Conversations, you`d think we`re the professionals and those in the video were just angry high school juniors.

I found no trace of Professionalism in that whole video AT ALL. How are these Journalists ?? Are they even supposed to do this ?? I`v no problem with criticism and I`v shown this numerous times, but that video is just sad..

It's IGN are we supposed to expect more, they're hardly credible. Mostly CoD fans.
Oh, and the one on the left, I thought he was a lesbian chick.

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 11:17 PM
I don't believe in game reviews anymore. People like and play whatever games they want to, it doesn't matter what the reviewers think. There could be a gamer who hates Red Dead Redemption and loves Prototype and I wouldn't care. Sure, pretty much everyone would disagree, but that's his opinion. Same with me, my favourite games this year were AC3 and Darksiders 2, and the critics didn't really love those games. Do I care? no. i play those games because I find them fun and it's what I like. that is all.

The games companies strongly disagree with you. Independent research earlier this year proved that review scores and financial performance are inextricably linked. Nobody likes to think that advertising or reviews affect them, but they do.

Also, the critics didn't love AC3 or Darksiders 2?
AC3 PC http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/assassins-creed-iii 86% average score
AC3 X360 http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/assassins-creed-iii 84% average score
AC3 PS3 http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/assassins-creed-iii 85% average score

Darksiders 2 PC http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/darksiders-ii 81% avg
Darksiders 2 X360 http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/darksiders-ii 83% avg
Darksiders 2 PS3 http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/darksiders-ii 84% avg

You probably bought these games because of their excellent advertising and massive support in the gaming press.

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 11:19 PM
The games companies strongly disagree with you. Independent research earlier this year proved that review scores and financial performance are inextricably linked. Nobody likes to think that advertising or reviews affect them, but they do.

Also, the critics didn't love AC3 or Darksiders 2?
AC3 PC http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/assassins-creed-iii 86% average score
AC3 X360 http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/assassins-creed-iii 84% average score
AC3 PS3 http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/assassins-creed-iii 85% average score

Darksiders 2 PC http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/darksiders-ii 81% avg
Darksiders 2 X360 http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/darksiders-ii 83% avg
Darksiders 2 PS3 http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/darksiders-ii 84% avg

You probably bought these games because of their excellent advertising and massive support in the gaming press.

Fair enough, but I meant that the critics didn`t love those games as much as they did with games such as RDR, Skyrim, Arkham City, and all those `perfect`games

And i bought those games because I enjoyed their predecessors, not because of their ads.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 11:20 PM
You probably bought these games because of their excellent advertising and massive support in the gaming press.
I`m also sure that ProdiGurl, someone who has not been following AC III`s marketing campagin, also bought it because of the massive support and excellent advertising...

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 11:29 PM
I`m also sure that ProdiGurl, someone who has not been following AC III`s marketing campagin, also bought it because of the massive support and excellent advertising...

Ubisoft spends millions of dollars and several months of the year on promotion to make sure you do. If it didn't work, they wouldn't bother. It's less important if you're already on the train, but they still have to make sure your attention doesn't drift away.

If someone buys a game after reading reviews, they almost certainly did so because of the reviews (http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-power-of-review-scores-why-critics-have-more-control-than-we-think1). If a person preorders a game, that's certainly the result of excellent marketing. Everyone wants to think they're above this, and I understand why, but deriding the entire business of professional criticism is very shaky. The whole industry desperately needs those critics, and it is precisely their job to identify the holes in the products.

UrDeviant1
12-02-2012, 11:31 PM
The games companies strongly disagree with you. Independent research earlier this year proved that review scores and financial performance are inextricably linked. Nobody likes to think that advertising or reviews affect them, but they do.

Also, the critics didn't love AC3 or Darksiders 2?
AC3 PC http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/assassins-creed-iii 86% average score
AC3 X360 http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/assassins-creed-iii 84% average score
AC3 PS3 http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/assassins-creed-iii 85% average score

Darksiders 2 PC http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/darksiders-ii 81% avg
Darksiders 2 X360 http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/darksiders-ii 83% avg
Darksiders 2 PS3 http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/darksiders-ii 84% avg

You probably bought these games because of their excellent advertising and massive support in the gaming press.

I bought both of those games because I liked their prequels. Does anyone really expect advertising to be a true representation of the actual game?

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 11:32 PM
I bought both of those games because I liked their prequels. Does anyone really expect advertising to be a true representation of the actual game?
lol exactly what i said

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 11:37 PM
Ubisoft spends millions of dollars and several months of the year on promotion to make sure you do. If it didn't work, they wouldn't bother. It's less important if you're already on the train, but they still have to make sure your attention doesn't drift away.

If someone buys a game after reading reviews, they almost certainly did so because of the reviews (http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-power-of-review-scores-why-critics-have-more-control-than-we-think1). If a person preorders a game, that's certainly the result of excellent marketing. Everyone wants to think they're above this, and I understand why, but deriding the entire business of professional criticism is very shaky. The whole industry desperately needs those critics, and it is precisely their job to identify the holes in the products.
I like to prove it. Mafia II was panned by critics. I heard nothing of it, except Eurogamer`s awful review that gave it 5/10. I said I`ll give it a go. It`s actually one of my favorite games now.

LA Noire was Universally acclaimed by Critics, but I never finished it.
GTA IV was Critically Acclaimed too, but I thought it was the most disappointing game I`v ever played.
Modern Warfare 3 was positively received and I gave it a go. Hate that game with every fiber of my being
Black ops 2 Is actually decent and for once I agree with its reviews.

Reviewers are Inconsistent. Suggesting that they have an effect on what we buy is ridiculous. Sure Marketing might (As evident by everyone calling AC III a disappointment) but Reviewers are not professionals and I`d rather take the word of a professional than IGN for example.. anyone who expected marketing to faithfully convey what the game truly feels is an idiot. Those are probably people that buy Dettol thinking that it truly removes 99.9% percent of the germs

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 11:44 PM
I like to prove it. Mafia II was panned by critics. I heard nothing of it, except Eurogamer`s awful review that gave it 5/10. I said I`ll give it a go. It`s actually one of my favorite games now.

LA Noire was Universally acclaimed by Critics, but I never finished it.
GTA IV was Critically Acclaimed too, but I thought it was the most disappointing game I`v ever played.
Modern Warfare 3 was positively received and I gave it a go. Hate that game with every fiber of my being
Black ops 2 Is actually decent and for once I agree with its reviews.

Reviewers are Inconsistent. Suggesting that they have an effect on what we buy is ridiculous. Sure Marketing might (As evident by everyone calling AC III a disappointment) but Reviewers are not professionals and I`d rather take the word of a professional than IGN for example.. anyone who expected marketing to faithfully convey what the game truly feels is an idiot. Those are probably people that buy Dettol thinking that it truly removes 99.9% percent of the germs

And you're just proving the whole point. The position against which I was arguing was "it doesn't matter what reviewers say". Well it does – and you bought all those games that disappointed you. It probably wasn't marketing alone, and even if it was, very little marketing comes to you totally unfiltered. It's far more likely you experienced the marketing via a gaming site or publication than it is that you exclusively saw preview material via email campaign or TV ads.

Reviewers are professionals. Anybody who gets paid to do their job is a professional. You are influenced by either marketing in the gaming press or reviews. We're all idiots to some degree, trying to navigate the information we receive and avoid the pitfalls.

Also, read that research. It's very thorough.

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 11:46 PM
And you're just proving the whole point. The position against which I was arguing was "it doesn't matter what reviewers say". Well it does – and you bought all those games that disappointed you. It probably wasn't marketing alone, and even if it was, very little marketing comes to you totally unfiltered. It's far more likely you experienced the marketing via a gaming site or publication than it is that you exclusively saw preview material via email campaign or TV ads.

Reviewers are professionals. Anybody who gets paid to do their job is a professional.

Also, read that research. It's very thorough.

i never said that reviewers don't help sales or anything. i said that I don't care for them, and that's how I feel. i'm not saying that reviews are useless and that nobody should listen to them, i'm just stating what I personally think about them

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 11:46 PM
I bought both of those games because I liked their prequels. Does anyone really expect advertising to be a true representation of the actual game?

And you bought the first ones because of the gaming press.

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 11:46 PM
And you bought the first ones because of the gaming press.

Practically nobody even heard of the first Darksiders before

D.I.D.
12-02-2012, 11:48 PM
Practically nobody even heard of the first Darksiders before

That's totally untrue. Let's not pretend THQ is some mom & pop software house. It was given a lot of pre- and post-release hype, but it was one of those games that didn't do stellar business. Plenty enough to get its sequel though.

UrDeviant1
12-02-2012, 11:49 PM
And you bought the first ones because of the gaming press.

You say It as though I bought them for that reason alone. I liked those genre of games before they were released. A gamers past experience with games also goes a long way when making a dicision to buy a game.

Assassin_M
12-02-2012, 11:50 PM
And you're just proving the whole point. The position against which I was arguing was "it doesn't matter what reviewers say". Well it does – and you bought all those games that disappointed you. It probably wasn't marketing alone, and even if it was, very little marketing comes to you totally unfiltered. It's far more likely you experienced the marketing via a gaming site or publication than it is that you exclusively saw preview material via email campaign or TV ads.

Reviewers are professionals. Anybody who gets paid to do their job is a professional.

Also, read that research. It's very thorough.
It`s not about Reviews. What don't get this ? (And No, I`m still holding on to my position that they`re not Professionals) Actually, It`s what i`m taught. That Reviews will never make, represent or affect public Opinion. It`s in the books.

Perhaps there are those that depend on Reviews, but you cannot just claim to those who actually say that "No Reviews do not make my opinion" that "YES REVIEWS DO, BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW IT".

It`s actually disrespectful to said person and implies a "Band-wagon" or "Sheep" Mindset.

the_heat11
12-02-2012, 11:52 PM
That's totally untrue. Let's not pretend THQ is some mom & pop software house. It was given a lot of pre- and post-release hype, but it was one of those games that didn't do stellar business. Plenty enough to get its sequel though.

Well, most people refer to it as a cult hit, meaning that it wasn't a really mainstream game and that those who knew of it either played it or were lucky to hear about it through all the other 2010 releases, name RDR. and there was a sequel because those who played it loved it and they told other people. Darksiders was a gamer's game. People generally found out about it through other gamers, not the press like other big time games.

D.I.D.
12-03-2012, 12:12 AM
It`s not about Reviews. What don't get this ? (And No, I`m still holding on to my position that they`re not Professionals) Actually, It`s what i`m taught. That Reviews will never make, represent or affect public Opinion. It`s in the books.

Perhaps there are those that depend on Reviews, but you cannot just claim to those who actually say that "No Reviews do not make my opinion" that "YES REVIEWS DO, BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW IT".

It`s actually disrespectful to said person and implies a "Band-wagon" or "Sheep" Mindset.

Anybody who knows a decent amount of psychology will understand the ways in which we are all susceptible to influence, and will not feel any shame about agreeing that they are part of this. To think it's about disrespect, or being a "sheep", is to completely miss the point. It's disrespectful of humanity to think there's a mass of weak-willed people and that you're better than them. The average person is you, me and everyone else reading this thread.

I think you need a different word than "professionals" too, since that one is specifically inappropriate to your point. I understand what you're aiming for, but you need a different definition. An amateur makes no money from a pursuit, while a person who gets paid is a professional; no other quality is demanded by the word.

I am trying to argue against a definite disrespect of the media, and a lack of understanding of how important the news media is to each and every one of us. No games company of any note would ever rely on preview videos alone without also submitting their games to review sites. Rockstar have the ability to be tight about information to the point that the frustrated fans interpret it as cockiness. They are guaranteed huge sales if they play their cards right, but even they would never consider bypassing the press. If they did, I might end up not buying their games, and so might millions of people like me. I might buy them weeks after release, or in a sale. That's no good to any of these people. If they can make me buy the game at full price in week one, or better still day one, there's something more than simple choice going on. Especially for me, as a PC player. If I'm thinking logically, I should never buy a game at full price because I've got no more than a few months to wait until the same games will cost a fraction of their initial price. Clearly I don't.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 12:31 AM
Anybody who knows a decent amount of psychology will understand the ways in which we are all susceptible to influence, and will not feel any shame about agreeing that they are part of this. To think it's about disrespect, or being a "sheep", is to completely miss the point. It's disrespectful of humanity to think there's a mass of weak-willed people and that you're better than them. The average person is you, me and everyone else reading this thread.

I think you need a different word than "professionals" too, since that one is specifically inappropriate to your point. I understand what you're aiming for, but you need a different definition. An amateur makes no money from a pursuit, while a person who gets paid is a professional; no other quality is demanded by the word.

I am trying to argue against a definite disrespect of the media, and a lack of understanding of how important the news media is to each and every one of us. No games company of any note would ever rely on preview videos alone without also submitting their games to review sites. Rockstar have the ability to be tight about information to the point that the frustrated fans interpret it as cockiness. They are guaranteed huge sales if they play their cards right, but even they would never consider bypassing the press. If they did, I might end up not buying their games, and so might millions of people like me. I might buy them weeks after release, or in a sale. That's no good to any of these people. If they can make me buy the game at full price in week one, or better still day one, there's something more than simple choice going on. Especially for me, as a PC player. If I'm thinking logically, I should never buy a game at full price because I've got no more than a few months to wait until the same games will cost a fraction of their initial price. Clearly I don't.
That exact same mentality can be applied to Reviewers as well. One of the biggest dilemmas facing most gaming sites is how to provide their readers with proper game reviews. A good game review is essential at the end of the day and lets people know which games should be played and which are not worth their time.

The biggest question always lies on the game’s score though. How do you pick it and how can you get most people to agree with the number you picked? What method did you use to determine the game’s score and is that method correct?

Do games even have one unique score they deserve or is a game’s score mostly based on opinion? Then if you get into Philosophy you can scratch even deeper by asking if a game even has an Objective score at all or if all game ratings are Subjective.

"Professional" Sites are also the ones that choose which game to crazily hype and which game to neglect to the little corner, Which games get the big banner and which get the little ad in the left. Generally I don't read reviews at all. The reason being two fold. First because of scores. I do not believe any complex opinion can be represented numerically without an extremely complex mathematical formula and no reviewer on this earth uses that (that I know of). Second, because the majority of reviewers don't know what they're talking about. I recall the review that made me realize this was one done by a freelance reviewer (whose name escapes me) who did a review for alpha protocol.

During the video it clearly showed that he was out of range when using a pistol (which makes your accuracy really bad) and then he blasted the game for being able to miss head shots when the reticule is right over the head. I sat there thinking (Well if you weren't across the map trying to shoot them with a pistol you wouldn't be having that problem. Maybe you should learn the mechanics of a game before "reviewing it")

Like I said, some do pay attention to Reviews, but to claim that EVERYONE does is absurd.

FrankieSatt
12-03-2012, 01:38 AM
In the end it really all depends on the person playing it. Some like it, some hate it. I personally don't care about reviews nor pay any attention to them, I do my own research and if I think the game will be good or it's a series I like I'll play it and then make my OWN opinion.

MY opinion is that ACIII is the worst of the series and brings down the series. I'm basing that off of playing the game and comparing it to other AC games.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 02:08 AM
MY opinion is that ACIII is the worst of the series and brings down the series. I'm basing that off of playing the game and comparing it to other AC games.
Didn't you already say that ??

Saqaliba
12-03-2012, 02:08 AM
Definately the biggest disappointment. Man this game turned out sucking in so so many ways. As for their 'not needing an animus' theory. I like the idea behind the animus, but I don't think the problem is the animus, it is the character/story development of the modern stuff. Desmond did not have to be boring and the modern sci-fi stuff could have been written way better and way more consistent. Hell, I could have done a better job writing some of this stuff.

Haythem was a really interesting character, and his voice actor was superb. Connor was soooooo boring. Some of his story dialogue was ok, but man all the side-quest stuff felt half-complete. Connor's voice actor was terrible, he sounded so wooden during the homestead missions. Sounded like it was rushed and recorded without even giving the voice actor a context basis. So lame.

And they could have used history way more interestingly... I mean, come on. We are suppose to by into their story of two secret societies, when they barely even touch the Freemasons and Illuminati who were the prominent secret societies of the day.... both having foundations in Templarism! And they just ignore that. Terrible script-writing. The dude who writes this bunk should go back to university or something.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 02:15 AM
Definately the biggest disappointment. Man this game turned out sucking in so so many ways. As for their 'not needing an animus' theory. I like the idea behind the animus, but I don't think the problem is the animus, it is the character/story development of the modern stuff. Desmond did not have to be boring and the modern sci-fi stuff could have been written way better and way more consistent. Hell, I could have done a better job writing some of this stuff.

Haythem was a really interesting character, and his voice actor was superb. Connor was soooooo boring. Some of his story dialogue was ok, but man all the side-quest stuff felt half-complete. Connor's voice actor was terrible, he sounded so wooden during the homestead missions. Sounded like it was rushed and recorded without even giving the voice actor a context basis. So lame.

And they could have used history way more interestingly... I mean, come on. We are suppose to by into their story of two secret societies, when they barely even touch the Freemasons and Illuminati who were the prominent secret societies of the day.... both having foundations in Templarism! And they just ignore that. Terrible script-writing. The dude who writes this bunk should go back to university or something.
Again...Another "Waaa Waaa I wanted this" rant..

Saqaliba
12-03-2012, 02:27 AM
**** straight. I expected it. They promised it. The put it in writing in magazines! In dev diaries and bragged about it, and it turned out to be nothing but crud and false promise, so yeah biggest dissapointment. Especially so because I am a specialist on esoteric history which is way more interesting and loaded with conspiracy than Ubisoft's fictional hype.

Assassin M is not qualified to critisize the game, because he is biased. So your opinion doesn't count. You are their biggest fan-boy/guard dog, so I would expect you to stand up for the product whether it is good or not. And in this case you just can't see that this game is really bad. I has good elements and lots of potential, but in the end: FAIL!

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 02:30 AM
**** straight. I expected it. They promised it. The put it in writing in magazines! In dev diaries and bragged about it, and it turned out to be nothing but crud and false promise, so yeah biggest dissapointment. Especially so because I am a specialist on esoteric history which is way more interesting and loaded with conspiracy than Ubisoft's fictional hype.

Assassin M is not qualified to critisize the game, because he is biased. So your opinion doesn't count. You are their biggest fan-boy/guard dog, so I would expect you to stand up for the product whether it is good or not. And in this case you just can't see that this game is really bad. I has good elements and lots of potential, but in the end: FAIL!
HA !! Show me where they promised the crap you claim they did xD You were probably day dreaming it..

And to the second paragraph.....No. You are not to say who`s qualified and who`s not. Know your place and speak from it and I`ll make sure I know my place as well...

FrankieSatt
12-03-2012, 03:11 AM
Didn't you already say that ??

Obviously no one read it the first I posted it because people are still *****ing and complaining about a video that gave THEIR opinion and because it happens to critisize the game, rightfully so, some people think it isn't a valid opinion.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 03:17 AM
Obviously no one read it the first I posted it because people are still *****ing and complaining about a video that gave THEIR opinion and because it happens to critisize the game, rightfully so, some people think it isn't a valid opinion.
I can say the same about you..They can too..

They can say your *****ing and whining...But what does that make them ? You..

Btw...just a little side note...Posting something more than once with the excuse that no one saw it is spam...Yeah

Saqaliba
12-03-2012, 03:24 AM
They promised stuff in Dev Diaries that was not included, such as customizable outfits. But just for starters, I will use the Gameinformer article as a basis:

"a new version of Ubisoft's acclaimed Anvil tech engine powers some for this generations most impressive visuals, depicting thousands of troops engaged in bloody battle as easily as high detail cinematics"

Are you kidding me! The detail in Revelations were better, and the thousands of NPC's were immobile firing squads in one or two scenes.

"You will see the great fire of New York"

Nope.

"...a crowd far more intersting and realistic than those of Damascus, Rome or Constantinople. A merchant marks Connor from afar and approaches to try and sell his wares. A boy stand along the dock and calls out for passers-by to buy newspapers."

No dynamic crowds. Same old boring repetitive A.I.

"A new dynamic camera rotates naturally to the best view of the action and auto zooms nearer as one enemy after another falls to your expertise. When it's down to one-on-one, the camera zooms so close it's almost like witnessing a fighting game exchange."

Nope. Same camera type as previous AC games. Another hyped up fabrication.

"...the simplistic 100-percent sync concept has evolved. You'll get significant rewards for doing these tasks, rather than just a 100-percent"

Significant rewards = Altair skin. Lame. That is not 'rewards' that is one reward for the whole thing.

"You can customize Connor's gear, as well as his costume, as the game moves forward"

Where are these 'customizations'?

"In the coldest moths, lakes and rivers will freeze over, offering new ground to navigate"

Really! Where is that?


And these were only the beginning of the promises that never eventuated.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 03:31 AM
-SNAP-
What the hell is all of this ?? You never mentioned all of these things. You were talking about "Conspiracies" and "Illuminati" being promised...Give me that..

I never said " OH HELL NOESSS THE GAME GAVE EVERYTHING IT PROMISED HOOOOO" If you`d know (and obviously you dont) how much I`v been talking about things they removed. I made 2 BLOODY threads about it, posted in the damm feedback thread and made a few other posts in another Thread about things removed..

Wanna know what else was removed ?? Canoeing...yeah sucks....Random Encounters...Sucks even more, but that`s beside the point...So, on point, where is the Illuminati stuff you claim they promised ??

Saqaliba
12-03-2012, 04:07 AM
I believe it was Alex who said in an interview that they were gonna be dealing with the Freemasons, but in a different way to Dan Brown. But the point is, whether or not they promised it or not, how can you ignore the Freemason/Templar connection in a game about Templars, set in the colonies of New York and Boston.

Sure they had the underground tunnels, which they stole from Cities of the Underworld anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lslsgjYeDQ0

But man.... the whole Templar-Freemason connection was formed during this period and they simply ignored it. What the hell? You cannot ignore such a significant lineage if you are dealing with history and conspiracy.

And for that matter, how could they leave out Washington's spy ring...

This is what I mean. A game about espionage, secrecy, assassination and secret societies leaves out the very things it should have for colonial America: The culper spy ring, Illuminism and Freemasonry.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 04:09 AM
I believe it was Alex who said in an interview that they were gonna be dealing with the Freemasons, but in a different way to Dan Brown. But the point is, whether or not they promised it or not, how can you ignore the Freemason/Templar connection in a game about Templars, set in the colonies of New York and Boston.

Sure they had the underground tunnels, which they stole from Cities of the Underworld anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lslsgjYeDQ0

But man.... the whole Templar-Freemason connection was formed during this period and they simply ignored it. What the hell? You cannot ignore such a significant lineage if you are dealing with history and conspiracy.

And for that matter, how could they leave out Washington's spy ring...

This is what I mean. A game about espionage, secrecy, assassination and secret societies leaves out the very things it should have for colonial America: The culper spy ring, Illuminism and Freemasonry.
And we`re back to Square one...

Another "Waaa Waaa I wanted this" rant..

EDIT: xD and haha When the game actually uses real life places, it means they`re stolen xD Oh You...

You contradicted yourself

Saqaliba
12-03-2012, 04:25 AM
If an author wrote a book on secret societies amongst the colonies and omitted the Freemasons as a main reference, I guarantee it would never get published.

Hell, there is even a conspiracy that links Adam Weishupt to George Washington. Washington even refers to the Illuminati in his own letters. Why opt for crappy fiction when you can play on the actual history!?

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 04:29 AM
If an author wrote a book on secret societies amongst the colonies and omitted the Freemasons as a main reference, I guarantee it would never get published.

Hell, there is even a conspiracy that links Adam Weishupt to George Washington. Washington even refers to the Illuminati in his own letters. Why opt for crappy fiction when you can play on the actual history!?
You fail and It`d take too long to explain why, between you and the new guy in the Soundtrack thread, i`m not really in the mood, so I`ll just shut up and you continue to desperately delude yourself..

PS... "Waaaa Waaaa I wanted this, Game sucks"

Saqaliba
12-03-2012, 04:53 AM
Game doesn't entirely suck. Just could have been way better.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 04:55 AM
Game doesn't entirely suck. Just could have been way better.
That we can STRONGLY Agree on...

Definitely

abbitha7
12-03-2012, 05:32 AM
I enjoyed ACIII, but it could have been better. I definitely agree that if Connor is to be the main focus, we should not have spent so much time playing Haytham. However, I for one liked Haytham a lot, and was disappointed when I started playing Connor. I found him to be boring, and I hope that Ubisoft does not continue making him the focus of games.

Of course, there are things I like about the game too, like tree-running. I also enjoy the present-day component.

psf22
12-03-2012, 06:20 AM
It`s not about Reviews. What don't get this ? (And No, I`m still holding on to my position that they`re not Professionals) Actually, It`s what i`m taught. That Reviews will never make, represent or affect public Opinion. It`s in the books.

Perhaps there are those that depend on Reviews, but you cannot just claim to those who actually say that "No Reviews do not make my opinion" that "YES REVIEWS DO, BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW IT".

It`s actually disrespectful to said person and implies a "Band-wagon" or "Sheep" Mindset.

It's true what you say. I've been buying games since '90 without any reviews and it's been exactly that way up until now!

I bought GTA:SA without seeing 1 video, and I thought it was arguably one of/if not the greatest game on PS2. Heck I didn't even know the release date, I just knew it was out one day somewhere during my birthday in '04.
I didn't watch any review or buildup video of GTA:4 and it disappointed me for the most part, and we all know how much that game was praised like it was the best thing ever. Although everyone I knew, including my personal reliable sources, said that it was amazing. When I disputed their opinion on why I think it's not that good, they started doubting whether they really thought it was as good as initially stated. (lol)
To give on more example: RE1/2/3 the gameplay was considered crap. But to me it wasn't, far from it actually. The fact that you could not run/gun made it truly what IT was, in my opinion. But if I would've went with mostly the Internet reviews, and even a large portion of the folks I knew, then I would've probably never bothered with it, because the gameplay was considered clunky, static, the back-and-forth running etc, basically garbage.

Back in the day when magazines were still hot stuff, I found way more pleasure reading those with more emphasis on a game in/by itself and how to improve or what the game has to offer in terms of gameplay and/or variation. These days with the 'evolving' of games the emphasis is more laid upon comparing it to other games of the same genre or storyline depth, side content etc. I wasn't reading in magazines '94' how MKII was a SF2 ripoff or that it wasn't as good or something like that, but NOW? Silly questions like "Did it live up to the hype?!" Oh please..
(You should've lived that particular era to understand what I truly mean here)

IGN's 'job' is quite frankily completely useless in my opinion. If nobody would pay attention to them, they'd go out of business and that be the end of it. What's their purpose? They only get paid to do 'a job'. Biased reviews and hype/bash train etc ALL included.

If something's good and/or fascinates you, you will no matter what, be aware of it sooner OR later, doesn't matter. You will find out about it. Whatever happens next, is all subjective and up to the user.
I KNOW what I look for in games or in franchises and if it's delivered in any way shape or form that pleases me personally, I will be content and I can/will look past the bugs and everything else that would be considered as a negative according to the 'general consensus'.

*I do read/watch reviews though, but 9/10 after the fact, just to see what ohers think or are led-on to believe. Basically for very different reasons than to be persuaded so to speak. That one time that I might read/watch it before the fact is more to see or to figure out if it is in accordance with my initial thoughts, feelings and/or doubts. And even then I'm still not persuaded easily because I tend to look for specific things per game. I for example never bought L.A. Noire just because it's from Rockstar eventhough EVERYONE I know personally (gamers) has it and they couldn't convince me to get it. Same could be said about other big-time games btw.

AelxProter
12-03-2012, 08:14 AM
They are dead on imo. The only think I enjoy in the game is running around the city and killing things. The stuff that kills me is that I MUST sneak by 2 guards to kill one guy, in the prison, knowing that I could just kill them all...

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 08:17 AM
They are dead on imo. The only think I enjoy in the game is running around the city and killing things. The stuff that kills me is that I MUST sneak by 2 guards to kill one guy, in the prison, knowing that I could just kill them all...
IGN just gave me a call and they`d love to offer you a contract. They say you`re the perfect reviewer..

Sign up at 12:00 Pm OK ?? Do not be late;)

psf22
12-03-2012, 08:33 AM
optional = MUST

AelxProter
12-03-2012, 08:50 AM
IGN just gave me a call and they`d love to offer you a contract. They say you`re the perfect reviewer..

Sign up at 12:00 Pm OK ?? Do not be late;)

You must be a fanboi with 9k posts. That's a lot of time spent here... wow man, 9k in posts of drivel and single line trolling> http://forums.ubi.com/search.php?searchid=2043242&pp=&page=2

I love AC, but this game has some serious shortcomings.

Among the greatest:
Chinese dubbed films have better voice synchs than these cutscenes. I don't even watch them anymore because they are so bad, and there might even be more cutscenes than gameplay.
Apparently we can't just kill wolves. It needs to be a dramatic cutscene.
This era was a poor choice. The towns are boring, ugly, and the tree running is nowhere near what it was hyped up to be.
They nailed it with the hours and hours of tutorials. very boring. tutorials.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 08:55 AM
You must be a fanboi with 9k posts. That's a lot of time spent here... wow man, 9k in posts of drivel and single line trolling> http://forums.ubi.com/search.php?searchid=2043242&pp=&page=2

I love AC, but this game has some serious shortcomings.

Among the greatest:
Chinese dubbed films have better voice synchs than these cutscenes. I don't even watch them anymore because they are so bad, and there might even be more cutscenes than gameplay.
Apparently we can't just kill wolves. It needs to be a dramatic cutscene.
This era was a poor choice. The towns are boring, ugly, and the tree running is nowhere near what it was hyped up to be.
They nailed it with the hours and hours of tutorials. very boring. tutorials.
Thank You:)

I`ll happily be labelled a fan-boy...as long as I`m not you

Also, Do not forget to sign up;)

MasterAssasin84
12-03-2012, 11:50 AM
I think IGN need to take a day off because the clearly favour COD gamers over any other genre.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 12:14 PM
They are dead on imo. The only think I enjoy in the game is running around the city and killing things. The stuff that kills me is that I MUST sneak by 2 guards to kill one guy, in the prison, knowing that I could just kill them all...

How can only 1 or 2 valid criticisms be "dead on" ? Most of it was just bashing the uniqueness of the game itself.
If so, then you belong in a different game genre. I don't care what type of games you or anyone else prefer, what I do care about are people who want every Game title to be all run-n-gun.
AC is unique in play style and that's the way it should be kept. If you want COD/BF & to blast your way thru a game, please keep your shelves stocked with that stuff and leave AC to others who appreciate the difference in gaming styles.
I wouldn't dream of attacking games like Portal for not being COD enough. Let them enjoy that for what it is - if you don't like it (which I don't), don't play it.

It has nothing to do w/ fanboi anything.

AdrianJacek
12-03-2012, 01:11 PM
Truth be told, all AC games are slow paced. And I love them for that. They take their time. I myself always try to 100% them every time I replay them. Or at least 99% them 'cause some Challenges are a bit too time-consuming and not even story related.

Saberine97
12-03-2012, 02:10 PM
I agree with their view on the intro, they could have easily made that part one sequence and not 5

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 02:55 PM
I agree with their view on the intro, they could have easily made that part one sequence and not 5

While I don't agree with the criticism for reasons of character building and tutorial (and most all AC games start out very slow to break you in to new gameplay), I can understand how people could dislike that and not have the patience for it.
But does that warrant most disappointing of 2012 with so many other let-down games this year? This one has so much to offer and they worked hard to make dynamic changes so it doesn't get stale.

AntiChrist7
12-03-2012, 03:36 PM
Well ubisoft spend their money on improving the game, not on paying IGN like CoD does for their game that is 90% the same as its predecessor

rafael52
12-03-2012, 03:36 PM
What's with the animus thing that the critisized?Have they even play AC:I?It's foolish!And about the tutorial thing.AC:II is supposed to present many new features.So we need to learn how to use them!And about the time spent with Haytham.It was very nice.Gave us a twist in the beggining of the game,an ancestor being templar.The only dissapointing thing in the game was the ending.I don't know if it was the ending itself or the way it was delivered.I personally didn't like it.

xboxauditore
12-03-2012, 04:03 PM
I'm just gonna sum up the video in case anyone hasn't seen it.

IGN "We hate Assassins creed because it's not CoD"

ACfan443
12-03-2012, 04:22 PM
I'm just gonna sum up the video in case anyone hasn't seen it.

IGN "We hate Assassins creed because it's not CoD"

"And I haven't played it but I'm gonna complain about it anyway"

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 04:30 PM
I'm just gonna sum up the video in case anyone hasn't seen it.

IGN "We hate Assassins creed because it's not CoD"


"And I haven't played it but I'm gonna complain about it anyway"

^ ^ ^ ^

MasterAssasin84
12-03-2012, 04:34 PM
Call of Duty is a Recycled product , if there Activision took a couple of years off to work on a complete new concept and Engine then maybe we would embrace it.

But does anyone see the humour ? ACTI - VISION quite an ironic title for such a company wouldnt you say !!

xboxauditore
12-03-2012, 04:44 PM
I'm a fan of Call of Duty and I've come to realise that EVERY Game after (I don't know, the game before Black Ops) is the same, You're a top-level Bad-a** who has to do nothing but shoot guys to get to someone who's somehow gonna destroy the world.

Black ops was the best and it was the game that got me into CoD, didn't have any interest in CoD before that, Then they just started repeating, Haven't even bought Black Ops 2 cus I don't want it to destroy one of my favourite games.

ASSASSINS CREED HOWEVER, I played AC1, Friggin loved it, Been hooked ever since, Loved every game since, Never had any major complaints.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 05:09 PM
I'm a fan of Call of Duty and I've come to realise that EVERY Game after (I don't know, the game before Black Ops) is the same, You're a top-level Bad-a** who has to do nothing but shoot guys to get to someone who's somehow gonna destroy the world.

Black ops was the best and it was the game that got me into CoD, didn't have any interest in CoD before that, Then they just started repeating, Haven't even bought Black Ops 2 cus I don't want it to destroy one of my favourite games.

ASSASSINS CREED HOWEVER, I played AC1, Friggin loved it, Been hooked ever since, Loved every game since, Never had any major complaints.

I like COD for what it is too. I just can't take the repetition of it that many hours. I rented MW3 (got BF/BadCo.2 & ME2 bundled w/ my Xbox on a Black Friday sale 2 yrs before) to see what it was like to play a COD vs. BF..... it didn't take long and it felt like I was playing BF again just in different environments. I also didn't understand alot of the missions (nor do you have to to complete them lol).
I'm sure it's best w/ MP than SP but I get too bored with it even it's done well.

AC has too much variety for me to get bored with it. They change things up alot & it seems fresh each time to me. I hope they keep moving in the right direction. I've lost a few titles along the way :nonchalance:

UrDeviant1
12-03-2012, 06:37 PM
I was enjoying my first week or so of playing Blops2, but you know what? It really Is just the same, and I'm soooo bored of It now, I'm actually trading It In for ££ towards Far Cry 3. Each Assassins Creed game has always done something new to keep me playing and the story kept me hooked.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 09:28 PM
^ I just read a short blurb about a Day 1 patch being put out for Far Cry 3. Makes me nervous. It should be great tho. I don't see how it could go backwards from FC1.
I wish someone made a documentary on what all it takes to create a popular game title.

Jexx21
12-03-2012, 09:33 PM
ProdiGurl, Far Cry 2 was pretty awesome- imo. I don't trust reviews anymore- of any kind, fan or press.

MasterAssasin84
12-03-2012, 10:41 PM
ProdiGurl, Far Cry 2 was pretty awesome- imo. I don't trust reviews anymore- of any kind, fan or press.

especialy IGN !!

the_heat11
12-03-2012, 10:45 PM
I say, screw reviews, try the game yourself. If you like it, get it. Even if the reviewers hate it. If the reviewers absolutely love a game, but you don't find it that fun, don't get it. Doesn't matter what reviewers or other people say, games are simply a matter of personal preference.

AelxProter
12-03-2012, 11:06 PM
I haven't even played Call of Duty, Modern Warfare or Battlefield, so you can save it and find something better to say.

I don't think there is any way you can argue that this game has far too many cutscenes. Most of these short little missions should either be cutscenes or not in the game at all. Sorry, but why am I walking Connor throw a crowd to the gallows, when there is literally only one control for me to use.

The hours of tutorials are garbage, and you go through tutorial after tutorial, through both the dad and connor. I'm pretty sure that could just be bundled up into a single animus mission...
The audio synching is literally the worst in any game i've played. It's like they went for the ME3 cutscenes which rocked, except ubisoft flopped when trying it.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 11:43 PM
I say, screw reviews, try the game yourself. If you like it, get it. Even if the reviewers hate it. If the reviewers absolutely love a game, but you don't find it that fun, don't get it. Doesn't matter what reviewers or other people say, games are simply a matter of personal preference.
/Thread..

In the end it`s an Opinion.

A very unprofessional, skewed, Misinformed and Idiotic Opinion, but an Opinion nonetheless. I`m sure they knew the consequences when they put that video up..Some`ll kiss their arses simply because they think the game sucks, others agree that indeed has disappointments, but will acknowledge the absurdity of the video while THE MAJORITY will just call IGN stupid..

Let everyone scream their lungs out about whether they liked the game or not....Either or...We`ll think you`re an Idiot...deep down in our hearts

TwoTonTitan
12-03-2012, 11:54 PM
Only two problems I have with this game, no Battle of Trenton when the picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware was one of the main advertising pictures for the game and not doing a lot with the American Revolution . Besides those two problems its a good game, but brotherhood and AC2 are still better.

BATISTABUS
12-04-2012, 01:03 AM
Detailed game reviews are fine and encouraged. When people start applying number to such an abstract and subjective system, that's when there are problems. Anything below a 9 is seen as not worth the money, and most people tend to jump right to the numerical score anyway. I would have no problem with IGN if they got rid of their numerical scores, but that'll never happen in a million years.

CalgaryJay
12-04-2012, 01:46 AM
Detailed game reviews are fine and encouraged. When people start applying number to such an abstract and subjective system, that's when there are problems. Anything below a 9 is seen as not worth the money, and most people tend to jump right to the numerical score anyway. I would have no problem with IGN if they got rid of their numerical scores, but that'll never happen in a million years.

And IGN did this to themselves a few years ago when they started giving basically EVERY major title at least a 9, its a joke. Now anything less than a 9 seems like a total failure.

10 years ago, the numerical rankings were actually quite fair and seemed well thought out. Now they're just ridiculous, and reek of pandering to the big developers.

EDIT: The only fair way to keep the numerical score is to actually have a scoring rubric. Otherwise, its just some dude/chick sitting in a chair going, "Ummmm....niiiiiine & a ha...no wait, um, nine? Yeah, nine. Feels like a nine". It's way too subjective, and IMO, just silly.

Soulid_Snake
12-04-2012, 06:22 AM
IGN were fair to give it a 8.5. As much as I love AC, this was a big let down for me,from a technical perspective! Ubi spent three years working on it, would it have hurt to spend a little longer ironing out the kinks? BTW, IGN are P*** Poor at reviews!

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 01:39 PM
And IGN did this to themselves a few years ago when they started giving basically EVERY major title at least a 9, its a joke. Now anything less than a 9 seems like a total failure.

10 years ago, the numerical rankings were actually quite fair and seemed well thought out. Now they're just ridiculous, and reek of pandering to the big developers.

EDIT: The only fair way to keep the numerical score is to actually have a scoring rubric. Otherwise, its just some dude/chick sitting in a chair going, "Ummmm....niiiiiine & a ha...no wait, um, nine? Yeah, nine. Feels like a nine". It's way too subjective, and IMO, just silly.

Great post.
I pay more attn to actual player reviews than corporate reviews/review numbers. & I do like to watch a game review video so I can see some actual gameplay & aspects about the game.
So I do find some value to corporate review - I just don't take their opinion & input on that gameplay very serious. I rate it by my own standards and what I'm looking for in a game.

There are tons of movies that get less than stellar reviews by movie critics that I find to be awesome movies - favorite movies of mine.
Just some other person's personal opinion & perspective based on their preferences & the place they are currently in life.

I don't know the in's & out's of IGN or other gaming site 'professionals' but I found this particular group to be tragic and downright amatuer in what they presented as reasons to bash AC and pick it over and above so many other games that have come out this year.

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 02:11 PM
Great post.
I pay more attn to actual player reviews than corporate reviews/review numbers. & I do like to watch a game review video so I can see some actual gameplay & aspects about the game.
So I do find some value to corporate review - I just don't take their opinion & input on that gameplay very serious. I rate it by my own standards and what I'm looking for in a game.

There are tons of movies that get less than stellar reviews by movie critics that I find to be awesome movies - favorite movies of mine.
Just some other person's personal opinion & perspective based on their preferences & the place they are currently in life.

I don't know the in's & out's of IGN or other gaming site 'professionals' but I found this particular group to be tragic and downright amatuer in what they presented as reasons to bash AC and pick it over and above so many other games that have come out this year.


Big Corporate Reviews always mean that the in house developers are always financialy in League with the Reviewers ( IGN are a big example ) they rate say its the best thing since sliced bread and because they are well established people take their word as just so rather than make their own minds up, they are also incredibaly Bias so i am not in any rush to embrace a score given by the likes of IGN because they obviously market their research to a certain type of gamer - Run and Gun Noob !!

D.I.D.
12-04-2012, 03:58 PM
I'm not going to go back to the point I was trying to make before about group dynamics – some people reacted as though I was suggesting some kind of hypnotism, and I can't be bothered to get back into what's wrong with that assessment – but there are a few things in this latter part of the thread which tease out the issues here.

Firstly: this video is a bunch of people (reviewers, true, but talking off the top of their heads as a group of friends) discussing the aspects in which highly anticipated games failed to deliver, and it's been edited down to feature the juiciest clips. Yes, they're shouting. Yes, they're being boorish. But honestly, get me talking about certain games and I'd be even less detached, and not everything I'd say would be 100% fair. Films, too: don't get me started about the spineless anti-movie that was Prometheus. Your targets might be different to mine, but can you honestly say you'd be much different to these men? However, if I was writing a review, I would cool my boots and write different things to the ones I would say out loud. By the same token, if I was reviewing Fable III I would have to put the fact that I enjoyed it to one side, because I know that objectively it is not a great game. In their professional capacity as reviewers, they too will balance their personal feelings against how well they believe GameX will satisfy their readers. If you need proof of this, just compare any mainstream reviewer to Yahtzee, and then remind yourself that Yahtzee is perhaps the greatest reviewer gaming has ever had. If you don't like him, and broad objectivity is what you value, then that's what every other reviewer provides (perhaps more so than you might realise). Both approaches deserve respect.

You know why reviews have number scores? It's not about what's good for a publication's image, or they'd have been ditched by everyone long ago, especially now we've moved from print to web. Kotaku dares to do without them because its site layout didn't support this anyway, since its navigation uses a very compact scrolling side-panel of headlines, but for everyone else it's delicious clickbait. That's why so many don't simply say "Resident Evil 6 review: read more" but instead say "Resident Evil 6 review, 5/10: read more". The first, you might read or you might not, but the second is going to make Resident Evil fans click the article so that they can leave an illuminating comment which explains exactly why this score means that Kevin Van Ord's family should die in a house fire. The mildest of Resident Evil fans will at least pop inside to passively huddle with RE fans as a reader. Someone makes a thread here – "Hey! These guys are ripping on AC3!" – and bang, there you go upping their video's view count and rolling out a multi-page thread on the topic.

You know whose fault it is, that numbers have such value? It's not the reviewers' fault: it's the readers'. These are the people who have most cultivated the idea that 7/10 means "worthless, move on". Sure, some responsibility should be borne by the big sites for awarding bad games 7s, decent games 8s and good games 9s, but here in this thread you have people conflating the word "review" with the word "score". The score is only an abstract guide, and the words of the review are what matters. It's been asserted in this thread that only a complex mathematical formula could create an accurate score, which is both misguided (numbers, again) and wrong. If you think a game world as beautiful as AC3's means the game is "worth at least a 7", you're as artless as the Prometheus fans who insist upon the same thing about that movie based on its effects.

I do my best to defeat my own tendencies to be swayed in ways that aren't helpful, so I check out a wide range of reviews. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a piece of entertainment or a toaster: I will pay particular attention to the middling-to-negative reviews, the nitpicky ones, because those are actually the most valuable. The number of fully positive reviews might be somewhat important, but I'm thankful to every man and woman who can tell me what they didn't like about something. I might go on to buy and enjoy those things regardless, and if I end up loving those things I'm not going to hate the people who tried to steer me away. Bless their beautiful shrivelled hearts, each and every one.

TLDR: Games journalists do everything they possibly can to support every game out there. They're the ones who make you aware of what's around the corner (or they tell someone who tells you). They give you their impressions of the early builds, and try to keep their accounts positive – not because they're in the pockets of the publishers, but because it would be unfair to swipe hard at the games until they are finished. The review stage demands that the game's weak points be revealed. "Nitpicking"? They're "hurting the industry"? Don't be ridiculous. A decade of softballing and gold stars for all was far worse. When a journalist wishes for a change, even one that you think is ridiculous, be grateful for it because these people drive standards higher.

Finally, if you're on "Team Assassin's Creed" to the point that criticism makes you angry, you're a far bigger problem than any journalist.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 04:06 PM
be grateful for it because these people drive standards higher.

Finally, if you're on "Team Assassin's Creed" to the point that criticism makes you angry, you're a far bigger problem than any journalist.
Are you a reviewer ?? because I think you just wiped out an entire fan-base and gave the sole credit of change and innovation to Gaming Journalists..

I mean..how does "Remove the Animus, there`s no reason for it" stand as Innovation ? Why the hell should I be grateful ?? For those ?? They gave Hitman a 9 while every other site gave it less than an 8...for god`s sake, man what THE HELL are you talking about ?? What is wrong with you ??

It`s not criticizing opinions anymore, because that`s fine....No...Now It`s "I`m right, you`re all wrong and you should be grateful"

D.I.D.
12-04-2012, 05:08 PM
Are you a reviewer ?? because I think you just wiped out an entire fan-base and gave the sole credit of change and innovation to Gaming Journalists..

I mean..how does "Remove the Animus, there`s no reason for it" stand as Innovation ? Why the hell should I be grateful ?? For those ?? They gave Hitman a 9 while every other site gave it less than an 8...for god`s sake, man what THE HELL are you talking about ?? What is wrong with you ??

It`s not criticizing opinions anymore, because that`s fine....No...Now It`s "I`m right, you`re all wrong and you should be grateful"

As I said, this is a chat, where criticisms may require that you read between the lines. If you want a sober review that talks about AC3 properly, check out their review (8.5, numbers fans).

It doesn't take much parsing to get where he's coming from. He means that the animus is unnecessary to the meat of the game, and that's true.

"But Desmond! But TWCB! He's missing the whole point!"

Well, no. Would he be saying that if the modern day/precursor race stories were undeniably excellent? Whatever position he takes on this, he represents the viewpoint of a hundred thousand AC customers, maybe more, and I'm certainly among them. If I was giving you a precise rundown of the situation, I'd say:

"The animus was an excellent idea, as an incorporated mechanism to represent the limitations placed upon a player in games. While other games obstruct you with invisible walls, or make pick-ups glow in an unnatural and immersion-breaking way, Ubisoft makes this part of the narrative. When the animus was used to force you to take note of historical details in the environment, and teased you to click the boxes to read more, AC really felt like a game series that loved education and strove for higher standards. Sadly, there's an unshakeable sense in ACR and AC3 that market forces have excised that bravery, and you'll have to dig around in convoluted menus if you want to learn anything today. Similarly, what began as an intriguing mystery about a precursor race mistaken for gods has been driven into the ground, and is now nothing more than a 3rd rate Stargate theme. Not even a global apocalypse could persuade me to care about the most beige character in AAA gaming, and the desire to make every game's stakes and ending more epic than the last is floundering in self-parody. Given that we're told this is an age-old conflict, I can't help feeling that the series would be vastly improved if it was liberated from these shackles. I would much prefer the game to simply deal with its pocket of history."

Put me on video with some friends, and I'll say:

"JUST DITCH THE F'ING ANIMUS ALREADY, ****. EVERY WORTHLESS THING THAT COMES WITH IT. I AM TIRED."

It's up to Ubisoft if they listen to criticism, and which things they agree with, but I'm talking about a general process of criticism. We are just recently beginning to see a turnaround in the culture of games journalism, after a long period of "it's all good" attitude. It was a disease. The companies understandably just want to survive to make more games, and if the press encourages them to do so then they will not take risks. Games production had become very bloated and complacent.

The customers who mistake hot-headed religiosity for valuable passion are not helping to improve games. Challenge is good. There are bad examples of this when it's delivered and accepted in the wrong way, and a sharp example of that would be the recent Mass Effect 3 petition with its changed ending. This was the wrong thing to do, because there was no way to change the ending that would truly satisfy the players; the damage was already done by the first ending, and no revision could ever soothe the sting that those complainants felt. Companies have to be careful about which ideas they honour and which they don't, but the conversation is always worth having.

Now look at you. They gave Hitman a 9, while every other site gave it less than an 8? Not true. Hitman: Absolution has a Metacritic average in the mid 80s. And you're still quibbling over numbers. Apparently if they'd given it one point less, you'd be cool with it. Can you not see how absurd that is? And you want to make games? You've got to get past that or you'll give yourself an ulcer.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 05:12 PM
As I said, this is a chat, where criticisms may require that you read between the lines. If you want a sober review that talks about AC3 properly, check out their review (8.5, numbers fans).

It doesn't take much parsing to get where he's coming from. He means that the animus is unnecessary to the meat of the game, and that's true.

"But Desmond! But TWCB! He's missing the whole point!"

Well, no. Would he be saying that if the modern day/precursor race stories were undeniably excellent? Whatever position he takes on this, he represents the viewpoint of a hundred thousand AC customers, maybe more, and I'm certainly among them. If I was giving you a precise rundown of the situation, I'd say:

"The animus was an excellent idea, as an incorporated mechanism to represent the limitations placed upon a player in games. While other games obstruct you with invisible walls, or make pick-ups glow in an unnatural and immersion-breaking way, Ubisoft makes this part of the narrative. When the animus was used to force you to take note of historical details in the environment, and teased you to click the boxes to read more, AC really felt like a game series that loved education and strove for higher standards. Sadly, there's an unshakeable sense in ACR and AC3 that market forces have excised that bravery, and you'll have to dig around in convoluted menus if you want to learn anything today. Similarly, what began as an intriguing mystery about a precursor race mistaken for gods has been driven into the ground, and is now nothing more than a 3rd rate Stargate theme. Not even a global apocalypse could persuade me to care about the most beige character in AAA gaming, and the desire to make every game's stakes and ending more epic than the last is floundering in self-parody. Given that we're told this is an age-old conflict, I can't help feeling that the series would be vastly improved if it was liberated from these shackles. I would much prefer the game to simply deal with its pocket of history."

Put me on video with some friends, and I'll say:

"JUST DITCH THE F'ING ANIMUS ALREADY, ****. EVERY WORTHLESS THING THAT COMES WITH IT. I AM TIRED."

It's up to Ubisoft if they listen to criticism, and which things they agree with, but I'm talking about a general process of criticism. We are just recently beginning to see a turnaround in the culture of games journalism, after a long period of "it's all good" attitude. It was a disease. The companies understandably just want to survive to make more games, and if the press encourages them to do so then they will not take risks. Games production had become very bloated and complacent.

The customers who mistake hot-headed religiosity for valuable passion are not helping to improve games. Challenge is good. There are bad examples of this when it's delivered and accepted in the wrong way, and a sharp example of that would be the recent Mass Effect 3 petition with its changed ending. This was the wrong thing to do, because there was no way to change the ending that would truly satisfy the players; the damage was already done by the first ending, and no revision could ever soothe the sting that those complainants felt. Companies have to be careful about which ideas they honour and which they don't, but the conversation is always worth having.

Now look at you. They gave Hitman a 9, while every other site gave it less than an 8? Not true. Hitman: Absolution has a Metacritic average in the mid 80s. And you're still quibbling over numbers. Apparently if they'd given it one point less, you'd be cool with it. Can you not see how absurd that is? And you want to make games? You've got to get past that or you'll give yourself an ulcer.
:eek: Basically my reaction reading all of this...

Also..





[hide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman_Absolution#)] Reception


Aggregate scores


Aggregator
Score


GameRankings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameRankings)
71/100 (PC)
80.90/100 (X360)
85.54/100 (PS3)


Metacritic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacritic)
78/100 (PC)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman_Absolution#cite_note-25)
80/100 (X360)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman_Absolution#cite_note-26)
84/100 (PS3)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman_Absolution#cite_note-27)


Review scores


Publication
Score


Edge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_(magazine))
7/10


Eurogamer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurogamer)
7/10


Game Informer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Informer)
8.75/10


GameSpot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameSpot)
7.5/10


GameSpy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameSpy)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Star_full.svg/11px-Star_full.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Star_full.svg/11px-Star_full.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Star_full.svg/11px-Star_full.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Star_half.svg/11px-Star_half.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Star_empty.svg/11px-Star_empty.svg.png


GamesRadar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GamesRadar)
4.5/5


GameTrailers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameTrailers)
6.9/10


IGN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGN)
9/10


Official Xbox Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Xbox_Magazine)
9/10


PC Gamer US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Gamer#PC_Gamer_US)
66/100


VideoGamer.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoGamer.com)
5/10

D.I.D.
12-04-2012, 05:24 PM
You can cherry-pick the low scores as much as you like, but...

Metacritic, 84/100

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/hitman-absolution

and whatever, your statement was that every other publication gave it less.

BUT BUT BUT BUT

As I keep saying, numbers are not reviews. Stop focusing on numbers. You are totally caught up in the thing you claim to hate. Gamespot, IGN and all those sites love it when you get ragey about Game X getting an 8 and Game Y getting an 8.5. Love it. That's what drives their traffic. All these sites have screwy scales, but in anyone's language 7 is an abstract guide that means "good", and 8 is an abstract guide that means "great". If 9 means excellent, then the difference between an 8 and a 9 is probably feelings. I could ask a friend if I ought to buy a game, and she might say it's great. If I reacted with disappointment that it was only "great", she would back away from me, slowly.

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 05:30 PM
As I said, this is a chat, where criticisms may require that you read between the lines. If you want a sober review that talks about AC3 properly, check out their review (8.5, numbers fans).


Precisely

Well said and I agreed with your initial post.

infamous_ezio
12-04-2012, 05:52 PM
hmm.... interesting... skimmed over the comments and i'll try and put my 2 cents in...
I don't agree with ac3 being the biggest disappointment of 2012. I like the animus, the concept is brilliant, the modern day story is why i even play the game. Subject 16 was just fascinating, and desmond's story is pretty cool. Although ubisoft messed it up with how bad they rushed it in AC3 and how revelations was a bit sloppy, I can see why people hate the whole animus/modern day concept all together. I feel like ubisoft were trying to hard to really nail the history part, which caused the modern day part to be quite sloppy, if they had really put the effort into desmond and make him
this master assassin that we thought he would be, these reviews on the animus/TWCB/Desmond would be different.. i'm a little disappointed but hey, they can't please everyone. IMO i don't care about these numbers, because the numbers they give these games are a personal preference of how they enjoyed the game, yes there were bugs, did i care? no.. should i? no because i play it for the story... this is why arguing over this review is plain silly. They don't have to like it, but they seem like they are literally trying to bash the game over everything... every game has a few issues... yes, we critique it as players and make our opinions. these guys are just losers.
just a note, i hate these guys, they seem like the type of people i'd punch in the face if i ever met them.

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 06:15 PM
:eek: Basically my reaction reading all of this...

Also..





[hide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman_Absolution#)]
Reception


Aggregate scores


Aggregator
Score


GameRankings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameRankings)
71/100 (PC)
80.90/100 (X360)
85.54/100 (PS3)


Metacritic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacritic)
78/100 (PC)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman_Absolution#cite_note-25)
80/100 (X360)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman_Absolution#cite_note-26)
84/100 (PS3)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman_Absolution#cite_note-27)


Review scores


Publication
Score


Edge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_(magazine))
7/10


Eurogamer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurogamer)
7/10


Game Informer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Informer)
8.75/10


GameSpot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameSpot)
7.5/10


GameSpy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameSpy)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Star_full.svg/11px-Star_full.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Star_full.svg/11px-Star_full.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Star_full.svg/11px-Star_full.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Star_half.svg/11px-Star_half.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Star_empty.svg/11px-Star_empty.svg.png


GamesRadar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GamesRadar)
4.5/5


GameTrailers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameTrailers)
6.9/10


IGN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGN)
9/10


Official Xbox Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Xbox_Magazine)
9/10


PC Gamer US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Gamer#PC_Gamer_US)
66/100


VideoGamer.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoGamer.com)
5/10




Hehehehehe.....typical

I, for one, would actually like to read something of substance and on topic from M.....a proper argument instead of a smart arse retort. Is it a defence mechanism?

Oh and BTW bringing up Absolution's scores is moot. Since we are talking about disappointment. A game needs to generate hype and momentum before disappointing...Hitman isn't there on the disappointment list because
(1) They loved it
(2) they had no prior expectations or much of a hype to work on

As compared to AC3 - the behemoth title that stands shoulder to shoulder with Halo and COD. And lets face it..

Y'know Assassin....sometimes I feel you're a midget...since almost everything goes right over your head.

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 06:43 PM
ProdiGurl, Far Cry 2 was pretty awesome- imo. I don't trust reviews anymore- of any kind, fan or press.

Missed that, thanks (had read bad reviews on gun jamming and being sick so often which made it too tedious so I skipped it).
Maybe that's a good example of why reviews can be bad to pay too much attn. to.?



Firstly: this video is a bunch of people (reviewers, true, but talking off the top of their heads as a group of friends) discussing the aspects in which highly anticipated games failed to deliver, and it's been edited down to feature the juiciest clips. Yes, they're shouting. Yes, they're being boorish. But honestly, get me talking about certain games and I'd be even less detached, and not everything I'd say would be 100% fair. Films, too: don't get me started about the spineless anti-movie that was Prometheus. Your targets might be different to mine, but can you honestly say you'd be much different to these men? However, if I was writing a review, I would cool my boots and write different things to the ones I would say out loud. By the same token, if I was reviewing Fable III I would have to put the fact that I enjoyed it to one side, because I know that objectively it is not a great game. In their professional capacity as reviewers, they too will balance their personal feelings against how well they believe GameX will satisfy their readers. If you need proof of this, just compare any mainstream reviewer to Yahtzee, and then remind yourself that Yahtzee is perhaps the greatest reviewer gaming has ever had. If you don't like him, and broad objectivity is what you value, then that's what every other reviewer provides (perhaps more so than you might realise). Both approaches deserve respect.
.

Whether they're in a small group, they still represent IGN as a company. A level of professionalism and less amateurism is expected (from me anyway).
That also doesn't remove the key elements of their lack of good reasoning that imo fails to prove it's the most disappointing of 2012. I still believe they chose AC becuz it seems that 1 guy is just a hater to the series itself, another hadn't even played it yet. Plus it was one of the newest games released and at the forefront of everyone's attention. They probly long forgot the others already.


You know whose fault it is, that numbers have such value? It's not the reviewers' fault: it's the readers'.


That I agree with and it goes for so many other negative media/entertainment options & societal issues we have going on today. I won't go into my lecture about a dumbed down populace to spare everyone lol.



Finally, if you're on "Team Assassin's Creed" to the point that criticism makes you angry, you're a far bigger problem than any journalist
.

Well we've already covered that in other threads, no fans here have remotely suggested that there are no problems or negative issues w/ ACIII or any other AC game in the past. I gave a feedback post with mostly all praise and listed 2 or 3 real issues I thought the game suffered from. I can love the game and have some issues at the same time.
It's just that some of us find some/many of the criticisms nit picky or invalid and speak up about that. Devs' can't win for losing if you browse over this forum for the past 4 pages.

From another post:
>> It doesn't take much parsing to get where he's coming from.
He means that the animus is unnecessary to the meat of the game, and that's true. <<

And I'm saying that whether or not that's true, it's completely benign as a reason to choose AC as 2012's disappointment.
That is what they CHOSE to use as a vehicle for the core of the AC story. They could have just created a story about mythical storks that pick you up and time travel to past eras and you can be an assassin wherever they drop you off at. That would be another vehicle they use to get you there.
Just like the time travel movies revolve around the machine they created to get you there. Does it make the classic time machine movies the worst movies ever becuz that machine is unnecessary? I say no it doesn't.

They designed an entire written series on the Animus as the vehicle of "time traveling" thru DNA memory and it's quite brilliant imo. Even to having Ezio understand a future assassin would take his mantle & carry on the fight. That was made possible thru the Animus delivery system.
That's the way it is. I can pick out thousands of movies or shows that don't NEED certain elements in their stories but it's there as what they chose for delivery of it. Some work, some don't.
It is what it is.The guy on the right sounded like an amateur hater and he lost all credibility from me which makes me question IGN's reviews (which I previously, in my ignorance about them, didn't have till I saw this video).

D.I.D.
12-04-2012, 08:19 PM
Well we've already covered that in other threads, no fans here have remotely suggested that there are no problems or negative issues w/ ACIII or any other AC game in the past. I gave a feedback post with mostly all praise and listed 2 or 3 real issues I thought the game suffered from. I can love the game and have some issues at the same time.
It's just that some of us find some/many of the criticisms nit picky or invalid and speak up about that. Devs' can't win for losing if you browse over this forum for the past 4 pages.

There's a territorial thing though. You can just about get away with serious dissent if you're a regular user of the forums and you've got something critical to say. I've seen quite a few incidents of people making ad hominem dismissals of people's opinions because "oh look, ANOTHER one who signed up in Nov 2012!", and of reviewers being "haters" as you said (one of my least favourite words in modern usage, I have to say), or "obviously that guy just has a vendetta against AC" when there's no way you could possibly judge that. At least you stay calm though, which is more than I can say for a lot of people who go from zero to sixty against criticism. I'm also reacting to the concept that picking on AC and other games is somehow dangerously cruel, as though AC was an endangered animal and critics are poachers who threaten its existence. I think these monolithic AAA games will be fine without their help, and in the opinion of many of us, the only thing threatening AC's continuation is AC itself.

I understand the concerns to some extent, but this isn't some daring new venture, fresh out of the gate. No game is perfect, but we are five games in. For what it's worth, I think AC3 would have been the absolute pinnacle of the series, but it had to be taken out of the oven before it was properly cooked because of the December 2012 deadline in the story. Were it not for that, I expect it would have been delayed to May next year. They still managed to show us some truly amazing things along the way, and I think they fulfilled their promise of giving us a taste of the next gen on current gen machines. While playing the modern story, it would be impossible not to recall the Watch_Dogs E3 demo and think, "Okay, that's really how it's going to look!"


From another post:
>> It doesn't take much parsing to get where he's coming from.
He means that the animus is unnecessary to the meat of the game, and that's true. <<


And I'm saying that whether or not that's true, it's completely benign as a reason to choose AC as 2012's disappointment.
That is what they CHOSE to use as a vehicle for the core of the AC story. They could have just created a story about mythical storks that pick you up and time travel to past eras and you can be an assassin wherever they drop you off at. That would be another vehicle they use to get you there.
Just like the time travel movies revolve around the machine they created to get you there. Does it make the classic time machine movies the worst movies ever becuz that machine is unnecessary? I say no it doesn't.

Well that's a little different. A time travel story is distinctly about its machine and time travel itself. Those stories ask if you could use time travel, would you do it, and then show you the potential negative consequences that you might not have considered. They're like "Faust", in that sense. Back To The Future could not simply be stories set in the 1950s or the Old West, because that's not what it's about, and the same goes for classics such as HG Wells's "The Time Machine". Primer needs its time travel machine. Doctor Who is not about history at all, and most of the settings involve invented planets and something of the future, so the Tardis is essential to it. I can't think of any story with time travel that can ditch its time travel element.

AC, however, has made too much of finding PoEs. We've always got to find PoEs, because of some sky-high stakes. And in order to find them, we have to revisit a time in history when someone else... also had to find PoEs. So, if you take out the modern day, what's different really? It's still a story about finding the PoEs, along with some other threads of historical intrigue... but is it? In fact, not every game would have to be about PoEs if you took away the modern story. It's only the modern story that forces that to happen. Without it, the historical story could be about anything, and maybe save the series from becoming a worn stencil.


They designed an entire written series on the Animus as the vehicle of "time traveling" thru DNA memory and it's quite brilliant imo. Even to having Ezio understand a future assassin would take his mantle & carry on the fight. That was made possible thru the Animus delivery system.
That's the way it is. I can pick out thousands of movies or shows that don't NEED certain elements in their stories but it's there as what they chose for delivery of it. Some work, some don't.
It is what it is.The guy on the right sounded like an amateur hater and he lost all credibility from me which makes me question IGN's reviews (which I previously, in my ignorance about them, didn't have till I saw this video).

Yeah it was okay, sometimes very good. But couldn't we close AC1 to AC3 as the Animus Series? Maybe you could have had a different ending to that section, if the animus would never be featured again. Or maybe leave the animus for a while, and then come back to it later when there's a really good story to tell? I'm worried about the insistence upon the animus, TWCB, the modern day struggle and PoEs having to be in every game. That's a pretty heavy list.

So I appreciate your position – sure, just because something isn't needed doesn't mean it should be struck off – but I think having to stuff four huge concepts into every game is consuming too much of the story's energy, leaving little for the rest to run on. I've seen a lot of games, movies and TV shows die with fewer constrictions than this. Think about AC2, for example: all that legroom... we'd found one PoE before, the First Civ was barely a twinkle in Ubisoft's eye, and that left loads of freedom to talk about Medici banking operations, papal conspiracies, dark background information from an unknown source, meeting and getting to know a ton of characters.

PS: I beg you. Please stop saying "haters". There's no such thing :(

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 08:41 PM
There's a territorial thing though. You can just about get away with serious dissent if you're a regular user of the forums and you've got something critical to say. I've seen quite a few incidents of people making ad hominem dismissals of people's opinions because "oh look, ANOTHER one who signed up in Nov 2012!", and of reviewers being "haters" as you said (one of my least favourite words in modern usage, I have to say), or "obviously that guy just has a vendetta against AC" when there's no way you could possibly judge that. At least you stay calm though, which is more than I can say for a lot of people who go from zero to sixty against criticism. I'm also reacting to the concept that picking on AC and other games is somehow dangerously cruel, as though AC was an endangered animal and critics are poachers who threaten its existence. I think these monolithic AAA games will be fine without their help, and in the opinion of many of us, the only thing threatening AC's continuation is AC itself.

I understand the concerns to some extent, but this isn't some daring new venture, fresh out of the gate. No game is perfect, but we are five games in. For what it's worth, I think AC3 would have been the absolute pinnacle of the series, but it had to be taken out of the oven before it was properly cooked because of the December 2012 deadline in the story. Were it not for that, I expect it would have been delayed to May next year. They still managed to show us some truly amazing things along the way, and I think they fulfilled their promise of giving us a taste of the next gen on current gen machines. While playing the modern story, it would be impossible not to recall the Watch_Dogs E3 demo and think, "Okay, that's really how it's going to look!"



Well that's a little different. A time travel story is distinctly about its machine and time travel itself. Those stories ask if you could use time travel, would you do it, and then show you the potential negative consequences that you might not have considered. They're like "Faust", in that sense. Back To The Future could not simply be stories set in the 1950s or the Old West, because that's not what it's about, and the same goes for classics such as HG Wells's "The Time Machine". Primer needs its time travel machine. Doctor Who is not about history at all, and most of the settings involve invented planets and something of the future, so the Tardis is essential to it. I can't think of any story with time travel that can ditch its time travel element.

AC, however, has made too much of finding PoEs. We've always got to find PoEs, because of some sky-high stakes. And in order to find them, we have to revisit a time in history when someone else... also had to find PoEs. So, if you take out the modern day, what's different really? It's still a story about finding the PoEs, along with some other threads of historical intrigue... but is it? In fact, not every game would have to be about PoEs if you took away the modern story. It's only the modern story that forces that to happen. Without it, the historical story could be about anything, and maybe save the series from becoming a worn stencil.



Yeah it was okay, sometimes very good. But couldn't we close AC1 to AC3 as the Animus Series? Maybe you could have had a different ending to that section, if the animus would never be featured again. Or maybe leave the animus for a while, and then come back to it later when there's a really good story to tell? I'm worried about the insistence upon the animus, TWCB, the modern day struggle and PoEs having to be in every game. That's a pretty heavy list.

So I appreciate your position – sure, just because something isn't needed doesn't mean it should be struck off – but I think having to stuff four huge concepts into every game is consuming too much of the story's energy, leaving little for the rest to run on. I've seen a lot of games, movies and TV shows die with fewer constrictions than this. Think about AC2, for example: all that legroom... we'd found one PoE before, the First Civ was barely a twinkle in Ubisoft's eye, and that left loads of freedom to talk about Medici banking operations, papal conspiracies, dark background information from an unknown source, meeting and getting to know a ton of characters.

PS: I beg you. Please stop saying "haters". There's no such thing :(

I'd love to buy you a pint...or a soft drink in case you're under-age

Extremely well put and addresses a lot of the core issues. Theres just so much I agree with you on the subject that I'll just add "+1" and leave it at that.

D.I.D.
12-04-2012, 08:50 PM
I'd love to buy you a pint...or a soft drink in case you're under-age

Extremely well put and addresses a lot of the core issues. Theres just so much I agree with you on the subject that I'll just add "+1" and leave it at that.

:D

Single-malt scotch please, no ice ;)

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 08:57 PM
There's a territorial thing though. You can just about get away with serious dissent if you're a regular user of the forums and you've got something critical to say. I've seen quite a few incidents of people making ad hominem dismissals of people's opinions because "oh look, ANOTHER one who signed up in Nov 2012!", and of reviewers being "haters" as you said (one of my least favourite words in modern usage, I have to say), or "obviously that guy just has a vendetta against AC" when there's no way you could possibly judge that. At least you stay calm though, which is more than I can say for a lot of people who go from zero to sixty against criticism. I'm also reacting to the concept that picking on AC and other games is somehow dangerously cruel, as though AC was an endangered animal and critics are poachers who threaten its existence. I think these monolithic AAA games will be fine without their help, and in the opinion of many of us, the only thing threatening AC's continuation is AC itself.

I understand the concerns to some extent, but this isn't some daring new venture, fresh out of the gate. No game is perfect, but we are five games in. For what it's worth, I think AC3 would have been the absolute pinnacle of the series, but it had to be taken out of the oven before it was properly cooked because of the December 2012 deadline in the story. Were it not for that, I expect it would have been delayed to May next year. They still managed to show us some truly amazing things along the way, and I think they fulfilled their promise of giving us a taste of the next gen on current gen machines. While playing the modern story, it would be impossible not to recall the Watch_Dogs E3 demo and think, "Okay, that's really how it's going to look!"


Well I don't take any of this personally unless someone goes after me personally - it's just a game - - albeit a game I adore :)
I know what you mean, but here's the thing about that aspect - when strangers come in to literally BASH AC on "home turf", it's like someone came into your house and started calling your mamma serious trash. It's not received well. They do look like haters & trolls & it's hard to know who's sincere & who's trolling for kicks. A few of them were obnoxious with the multiple rant threads too.
It's not fun to be a member of a game forum when people are trashing everything - the enjoyment goes away. Do you just leave in defeat or do you argue your positions?

Secondly, it was a pattern here for awhile and members got sick of it & started retaliating due to extreme amounts of negativity. There was almost all focus put on what was disliked and what was good got ignored. That gets irritating after awhile. I browsed over the past 4 pages this morning - just look at all of it. I truly don't believe this game warranted all of that with how good it was in so many other areas. So ya I see your point but at the same time I get why it was happening.



Well that's a little different. A time travel story is distinctly about its machine and time travel itself. Those stories ask if you could use time travel, would you do it, and then show you the potential negative consequences that you might not have considered. They're like "Faust", in that sense. Back To The Future could not simply be stories set in the 1950s or the Old West, because that's not what it's about, and the same goes for classics such as HG Wells's "The Time Machine". Primer needs its time travel machine. Doctor Who is not about history at all, and most of the settings involve invented planets and something of the future, so the Tardis is essential to it. I can't think of any story with time travel that can ditch its time travel element.

AC, however, has made too much of finding PoEs. We've always got to find PoEs, because of some sky-high stakes. And in order to find them, we have to revisit a time in history when someone else... also had to find PoEs. So, if you take out the modern day, what's different really? It's still a story about finding the PoEs, along with some other threads of historical intrigue... but is it? In fact, not every game would have to be about PoEs if you took away the modern story. It's only the modern story that forces that to happen. Without it, the historical story could be about anything, and maybe save the series from becoming a worn stencil.


I guess it could be considered semantics if we wanted to debate if AC at it's core is really a time travel story... in a way I believe it is since SO much of your gameplay is all in the past in another era. The main difference is that you aren't yourself in the past, you're another ancestor. So..... I dunno.

Well I'd assume that the original writers of AC fully intended for this Animus to be the vehicle permanently? Alot of times when you write something and it becomes a huge hit, your story could have hindered future sequels (ie. characters getting killed off, etc.)... just becuz a guy at IGN says it isn't necessary does not mean AC devs will scrap the Animus & just do something else.
& if they do, I can about guarantee there will be hardcore AC fans ranting that they just made the previous AC's pointless.
My experience around here after ACR's release is that any direction Devs take, it will be hated by any number of fans - the fan base is too divided about it.

Now I personally won't care about that - my main focus of AC has always been Ezio/Connor playing the Assassin & wiping out the Templars/halting their plans. The other apple stuff was good and intriguing, but I'm ok with any direction they go to continue a fresh AC experience... esp. if the story is getting really stale, convoluted, inconceivable or hokey to keep going.


Yeah it was okay, sometimes very good. But couldn't we close AC1 to AC3 as the Animus Series? Maybe you could have had a different ending to that section, if the animus would never be featured again. Or maybe leave the animus for a while, and then come back to it later when there's a really good story to tell? I'm worried about the insistence upon the animus, TWCB, the modern day struggle and PoEs having to be in every game. That's a pretty heavy list.


See above, I got ahead of things as it went on.


So I appreciate your position – sure, just because something isn't needed doesn't mean it should be struck off – but I think having to stuff four huge concepts into every game is consuming too much of the story's energy, leaving little for the rest to run on. I've seen a lot of games, movies and TV shows die with fewer constrictions than this. Think about AC2, for example: all that legroom... we'd found one PoE before, the First Civ was barely a twinkle in Ubisoft's eye, and that left loads of freedom to talk about Medici banking operations, papal conspiracies, dark background information from an unknown source, meeting and getting to know a ton of characters.

Well I never gave my position on it actually, I just explained how it related it to his using it as reasoning that ACIII was the 2012's biggest disappointment.
I mean come on, the Animus was there from the start - why is it TODAY making it a reason for worst disappointment? Everyone EXPECTED the animus & Desmond to be in it !!?? Can you imagine if Ubi scrapped the entire Animus for ACIII with people expecting Desmond & that whole story?? lol
Well at least the dude at IGN would have been happy it was scrapped. lol :D

Anyways, like I said, I'm open to some change - I welcomed alot of the changes they did in this game - I don't know what they want to do w/ AC & its direction. They can take the purist approach & continue the core foundations they had built, or find a way to veer off them. I just don't know how well it will be received and alot will depend on gameplay itself.
If it's a good game, people can overlook things.

One last point, I think if they do another Connor sequel to ACIII, they will have to continue w/ an Animus to finish it off at least. Maybe give a huge "revelation" of how it won't be necessary after Connor. ???.


PS: I beg you. Please stop saying "haters". There's no such thing :(

I disagree, there is such a thing. It just depends on if it's an accurate accusation or not to any one individual.