You Can't Spell Assassin Without...

[Noyb]

Being a fan of Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, I was looking forward to Assassin's Creed. From the wildly contradicting reviews out, I'm not sure now whether I'll pick it up just yet or wait until this insanely packed season is done. My title is a bit misleading, because I do want to play this game eventually. It just dropped a bit down my list at the moment.

Eurogamer - Liked the general combat and free-running gameplay, but felt that the meta aspects of each mission got very repetitive. What struck me as odd was that they thought the hit missions played like an inferior version of Crackdown of all things, when I was expecting a more Hitman-style mission structure. About the assassination missions, they said:

There are no interesting approach tactics. You just get close, watch a cut-scene, and then strike. You seldom do this without alerting the target and his guards - instead you either give chase before planting a dagger in his throat, or you get into the usual sort of block-and-counter fight and go at it until you've stabbed him enough to get the final cut-scene.

IGN - I dislike IGN's reviews/editorial standards in general, but I'm linking to them because they echo many of the same gripes and praise as Eurogamer.

Gamespot - Glowing review. Unlike the above review, they love the story (which they spoil nearly completely using the excuse that the major plot twist occurs early in the game. Dicks.) As for repetitiveness, they say that it's "endlessly entertaining." What is odd is that the reviewer says that the PS3 has better framerates, but the IGN review makes a point of saying that the PS3 version's framerates drop down significantly in the last 1/3 of the game. Although looking for that quote right now, IGN apparently redacted it, then restored it again, so make of that what you will.

This is by no means comprehensive, but I normally trust Eurogamer's reviews, so that alone gives me pause. Anyone manage to play it yet?

[Duncan]

I've definitely lost enthusiasm after reading those reviews. I'll probably buy Crysis or something instead and wait for a price drop on AC (which if I'm being honest with myself, "waiting for a price drop" means "totally forget and never play it", which is really what will happen.)

The "7" reviews are more convincing to me than the "9" reviews: based on what's been presented of the game so far, I have no trouble believing that it's a little empty and repetitive. The "9" reviews are downplaying those criticisms rather than refuting or justifying them.

The framerate contradiction in Gamespot's review is odd, but then so is the score, I suppose. Of all the major review sites I've always thought Gamespot is the one to play it safe; every now and then they won't particularly like a high-profile game but because they're Gamespot they won't say it. (Half-Life 2.) I'm sure Gamespot's review was written before that rash of 7s came in, if it was written today I think it might read a little differently.

[Cigol]

I'm disappointed by the reception it's recieving but I guess I can't say I'm surprised. It initially had a lot going for it but as the hype played out the cracks started to appear. Probably one of those rare occasions where media saturation didn't work in its favour - at least from a critical standpoint, as I've no idea whether it's ruling the sales chart or not?

What struck me as odd was that they thought the hit missions played like an inferior version of Crackdown of all things, when I was expecting a more Hitman-style mission structure.

And there goes my desire to play the game. Plop.

[sphaloman]

I just got the game and so far its going good, It's everything I thought the game would be like.

[DanJW]

Which is what?

[Nappi]

My alarm bells started to ring when I was watching some gameplay demonstrations, and Jade Raymond (you probably haven't heard of her, but she has something to do with the game) said things like "Every assassination has like three basic steps. First you have to locate the victim, who is actually a really bad man, then kill him, and finally escape." and "Whenever you enter a new city, first thing you want to do is find like a really tall building and climb it." (not her exact words)

Hearing these kind of comments felt a bit weird because, no matter how true and (when you really think of it) obvious these things actually are, promoting the game as being repetitive is not something you usually want to do.

The repetition doesn't actually worry me that much. Thing that really stunned me when watching some recent footage (probably the newest addition to Gametrailers' long list of excellent video reviews) was the visual effects and the UI. It seems to me that those randomly appearing bright white DNA maps, the futuristic health bar, and "34/45 Templars killed" style objective images are potentially going to distract the player from the medieval atmosphere more effectively than a picture of Jade distracts some of the video game journalists (bloggers) from the game she is working on.

What I would like to know is how often do you see those glowing texts on the screen? And can they and the visual UI elements be hidden somehow?

[sphaloman]

Which is what?

Pretty much what I've have heard about the game, which is a strong storyline and has a fun gameplay. It's freaking cool to climb up on things, I personally believe ubi did well on this game.

[DanJW]

Gabe at Penny Arcade has defended the game, which is something I guess. Although he's not the sharpest knife in the ribs...

I guess I was wanting more of a Blood Money, open-ended approach to the assassinations, which is a fair expectation I think. Also a touch more stealth. Who would make a game about being an assassin without taking some lessons from the Hitman series?

Anyway, like Noyb, this is still on my wanted list but it has dropped a few places.

[sphaloman]

I couldn't believe how people were giving it negative feedback when they never even played the game. If you went to ubisoft assassin creed fourm you would have seen a lot of negativity about the game, most of the authors of the threads they made didn't even try the game.

[Noyb]

I couldn't believe how people were giving it negative feedback when they never even played the game. If you went to ubisoft assassin creed fourm you would have seen a lot of negativity about the game, most of the authors of the threads they made didn't even try the game.

This isn't feedback, but speculation based on reviews. Gaming is an expensive hobby, and there is no demo out for Assassin's Creed, so the opinions of those who have played it (reviewers and friends) are the only basis I have to go on about the game's quality without plunking down the significant up-front cost to try out the game. Normally, I'm able to get a decent picture about a game from a cross-section of reviews (like Dreamfall got middling reviews, but I knew I would like it), but I can't quite get a clear grasp on that in this case. I'm not saying "OMG Asasin's Crede is teh gayz. I now it sux and will never ply it to pnish ubisovft for lying 2 me!" I'm just saying that at this point of time, in the middle of a busy gaming season where I can't afford most of the games that I want out at the moment, these mixed reviews are making me wary, shelving my desire to play this game until a future time when it drops in price and my free time clears up.

[Roderick]

I just came back from hours of AC play at a friend's house, on a gorgeous HD-ready tv. It's too late in the night to write a cohesive thing, so I'm just going to blurt out my impressions. First of all, I really have to stress that I played the game just trying out all the stuff in it. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the story or the missions or whatever. So in this case, this night the game was like Grand Theft Auto where you just go for a walk and start killing people or riding a horse. And it was absolutely fun! Can't say a whole lot about repetitiveness yet, of course, but I had a blast! The killing is very satisfying and so is the interactivity with the environment. Controls are fairly complex, it takes a while to get used to them. But they do seem to give the intereactivity a depth that simpler controls might not have had.

Visually the game is very impressive. I don't care about occasional glitches or tearing screens; whatever. The design is mesmerizing; I love how the idiom of the game is surprisingly unique. The middle-eastern scenery is a lovely backdrop and it's refreshing to see cypres trees everywhere. It has that medieval feeling, but far less clichéd because of this.

But above all, I had a good few hours worth of immense fun. The game makes the tiniest move very impressive to watch; so there's a great sense of gratification. Just hopping over roofs is already fun. I know this perception of the game might change as I delve deeper into the missions, and maybe stuff gets repetitive, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a disgrace that reviewers give a game that has such fun-potential (GTA style) low 7s or whatever. I guess what Gabe said is perfectly true. If you go out to 'review' the game and rush through it, you're not going to understand why this can be such fun. But if you're just going to dick around and see what happens if you throw a guy into a crowded market stand (and you should) and that sort of tomfoolery, this game gets as good as GTA can get. Honestly, you wouldn't judge the latter based on only its missions, right? So just because Assassin's Creed has put more work into its mission is a justification to score it less? Crazy stuff.

Well lookie here. I guess I got carried away in my vocality after all. It mustn't be that late, then.

[DanJW]

Ah, that's all good to know.

[Nachimir]

I've played it for a few hours now, it's fairly enjoyable.

Rodi is right, the animations are very impressive. AI is nothing really amazing (though none ever is really), but this is a great progression on the ilk of thief games.

It's getting a bit dull at this point, but that's most likely because I've been noodling around getting all the lookout points rather than getting on with the missions. My housemate is a bit further on, and has picked up more abilities that seem to make combat a bit more interesting.

[Marek]

I played it for a little bit on Friday and then watched as other people played it some more. In short, I expect the story to be underwhelming, based on what I saw. The sci-fi element of it is pretty lame and clearly created as a convenient but pretty out of place framework for future sequels. I also expect the missions to be somewhat underwhelming.

But there's something about the game that does seem like a lot of fun. There are GTA-esque elements in there (find hidden packages on rooftops, kill x number of templars, and just fucking around and climbing onto things) that should be very entertaining. The atmosphere of the game is wonderful.

[Oath]

I'm having a lot of fun with it, though I'm starting to feel the repetitive nature of the game reveal itself after only the second assassination. The PS3 version seems a bit shoddy as well, with a fair bit screen tearing (which I can accept) and game ending crashes every now and then (which is harder to bear). It even hangs on the loading screens at times, which is really frustrating if you've just crossed the entire kingdom and entered a city, only to have to repeat it again.

Near the Assassin's Bureau in Jerusalem the game grinds to a halt, not going above 5 fps for some reason. Is this in the 360 version too or just a bug in the PS3 version? I've checked the disc and it's as clean as can be.

Bugs aside, just going about the cities and taking out rooftop archers is a blast.

[Nachimir]

The sci-fi element of it is pretty lame and clearly created as a convenient but pretty out of place framework for future sequels.

I kind of accept the

cheesy sci-fi

as a rationale for the more game-like elements of it, like the hiding places. Also, every time I'm in one of those I feel like singing.

After a few hours and the first mission done, I'm still having fun and thinking it doesn't quite deserve the big "meh" it's getting. Also, parry kills make the combat a lot faster - it *is* pretty dull at first.

That makes me wonder if it's deliberately designed that way to incentivise people to avoid it? If so, terrible decision, they should have just made it so you get butchered face to face against two or more people. It's very strange that they circle you and take turns when that many people could easily just dice you - though I suppose it's yet another strange game world thing conveniently rationalised away by the

reconstructed memories

thing.

Oath, I'm playing it on a PS3 and will take a look at that when I get to Jerusalem. So far, there is a lot of screen tearing if I'm looking at a whole city.

[Roderick]

Could someone with a PS3 confirm whether the Gametrailers.com comparison of the PS3 and 360 versions is tampered with? Because the PS3 version looks frighteningly inferior; less contrast, extremely blurry. I'd dislike to think the comparison had some hidden agenda against the PS3 or anything. So, is the game as nice as it looks on the 360 (which I have seen with my own eyes and know is exactly like in the test), or is it really that subpar?

[Nachimir]

I've not seen the 360 version, but the PS3 colours shown here are pretty close to what I see. So it seems the colour saturation and contrast are indeed lower on the PS3. As far as I can tell, there isn't less detail though, it just looks that way because of the difference in palette. The models appear identical, and if they were using lower resolution textures it'd be way more obvious.

[Cigol]

For those playing the game - where does Kristen Bell of Veronica Mars fame come into the equation? She's supposedly in the game?

[eljay]

She's a major part of the *TWIST* scif-fi parts of the story.

[Nachimir]

Near the Assassin's Bureau in Jerusalem the game grinds to a halt, not going above 5 fps for some reason. Is this in the 360 version too or just a bug in the PS3 version? I've checked the disc and it's as clean as can be.

It'll be some time before I have enough spare to get to Jerusalem, but I asked my housemate, who's played 6 of the nine assassinations so far, and he says his copy does fine when he's at the bureau in Jerusalem.

We're playing on a 60GB Euro PS3 that was bought secondhand this summer. Not sure if the firmware is updated or not.

[Oath]

It'll be some time before I have enough spare to get to Jerusalem, but I asked my housemate, who's played 6 of the nine assassinations so far, and he says his copy does fine when he's at the bureau in Jerusalem.

We're playing on a 60GB Euro PS3 that was bought secondhand this summer. Not sure if the firmware is updated or not.

Well it only seems to happen every once in a while now, but Jerusalem on a whole is the city with the most slowdown for me. Rest of the game runs pretty smoothly.

[Erkki]

Wired has a review as well: http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/11/review-why-assa.html

This is the most negative review yet, I think? I only skimmed the others. This actually made me both want it more and not want it so much at the same time. I think I will be disappointed as well, but now I know what to expect and still want to see what it's about. And I will probably enjoy the free running in/and the awesome looking environments.

But taking the PoP: Sands of Time sequels and now this into account, I'm really really disappointed in Ubisoft. To ruin such potential... I just hope there won't be a more Xtreme sequel to Assassins Creed.

In hindsight, it should have been obvious that this game was going to be somewhat shallow, by who was chosen to present and hype it to the public -- Jade Raymond, a really cute girl who never really seemed to have much of a clue.

[Scrobbs]

I think the new splinter cell was going to have a similar idea - 'hiding in plain view'. Flogging a dead horse, Ubi?

[Roderick]

What? Group mechanics are a pretty novel thing; available only now in this latest generation in this sophisticated manner. Until companies stop making 2D fighters and other hugely old concepts, I think it can't hurt to see another stealthy group mechanics game featuring more intricate interaction

Also, it's patriarchical bullshit that having a front woman would somehow tell you something about the quality of the game.