Against better judgment, I finally sat down for some Assassin's Creed, and I have to ask: who the
fuck slipped crazy into the breakfast cereals of gamers everywhere?
This isn't a review, because
we've already got one of those. Anthony was on the mark. Instead I'm curious as to why the hell a game like Assassin's Creed gets defended by gamers willing to hurl themselves in front of oncoming trains for it when UbiSoft didn't afford its customers the same courtesy. It didn't take longer than an hour -- just
one hour -- for the game's formulaic approach to gameplay to become painfully apparent, and what I had heard whispered out of earshot from the Great and Terrible Internet (in dark alleys, behind closed doors) seemed quite true. It was an average game -- a beautiful, average game.
The game aside, I had a question. The pathology of fanboyism isn't difficult to understand, at least insofar as it relates to consoles; you find yourself in alliance with a particular system because, at least these days, consoles seem to represent some sort of set of ideals, design ethic or brand of consumer as opposed to just a company. But invoking a fiery defense of Assassin's Creed (and, by extension, UbiSoft Montreal) is a different matter.
I've asked this question several times, but it bears repeating: why fight so bloody hard to defend a company who has done nothing for you except profit off of your loyalty while failing to live up to expectations? The less we hold companies responsible for fucking up, the more likely they are to feed us shit. So if you hear someone calling Assassin's Creed a "nearly perfect" game, punch them in the stomach and tell them that spreading such talk is like rat poison to our industry.
Aaron Linde's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
(I am quite surprised at the ratings it's getting, though. Feedback I've been getting from friends about the game have been lukewarm at best.)
I may give it a rent when I get a 360 in a couple of weeks (woot) just so I get into the loop.
"*Note: The above contained Assassin's Creed spoilers."
HA! Brilliant.
[note: these negative reviews are telling me more about the game than the positive ones. Coincidence?]
Yeah it's buggy and yeah it feels repetitive sometimes. But I like the story line, I love Altier, I love the design and I love the game.
What I'm curious about is why the hell a game like assassin's creed gets assailed by gamers willing to burn ubi montreal's headquarters to the ground for it when they clearly put an ungodly amount of work into it. It's by no means perfect, and I get the feeling it could have used a bit more QA, but considering how ambitious a project it was, I firmly believe it was a success. No game is perfect, not even mario galaxy(as damn near as it comes) or *insert favourite game here*. AC is incredibly beautiful though, and as much as I feel gameplay takes precedence, the importance of a resplendent presentation should never be underestimated. Also, I find the parokour exploration and combat/assassinations more than enjoyable enough to propel me through the most certainly repetitive structure.
So why do people make posts defending the game? The same reason you made a post damning it. I guess it's a kind of love/hate thing where the one side can't quite understand why the other side feels the way they do. Also, I think PA's gabe gave a pretty good take on it.
Games shouldn't be about making your own fun.
Lesson: Read reviews throughly before opening mouth.
The free running is very enjoyable. The crowds in the city feel more real than any other game I've played to date. Climbing doesn't seem awkward, in so far as there are no obvious "ok here is where I can climb" moments. A halfway decent story and voice acting are present. It at least allows for some freedom in how you go about your main assassination, although there are "best" ways to do it.
The game does have problems too. The guards can be pretty dumb at times, stab somebody in the back in front of one and hit blend immeadiatly and you might as well be invisible. Linear story, it would have been cool to be able to choose your assassination target in the game and have it affect the outcome somehow, similar to the bioshock choice to kill the little girls or save them. It is repetitive, go here, collect information, climb stuff, impress your local assassination dude and then go kill your guy, repeat 9 times.
I think knowing what this game could have been makes me a little sadder. However, for myself I love the history at this time, the free climbing and look of the game made it worth it for me even if it is repetitive. If its not your thing, maybe give it a rent and at least see for yourself.
For starters the whole Jade Raymond thing is/was totally embarrassing to watch. Jade gets attention because gamer guys assume she would accept them despite the fact that they are nerds just because she makes games. Wake up, fellas. Unless you can hold a conversation, are in decent shape, and make some money, a girl like Jade Raymond would give you the time of day. She may be a little less harsh on you for your introverted gaming ways than the average hot girl, but maybe not. She may be even more against you because she deals with gamers day in and day out, and is totally sick of all of you.
That's how Shatner treats Star Trek fans. I wouldn't be surprised if Jade was the same way.
As for the actual game, I always thought it looked like crap. All promotional material from the game led me to believe it was a "period piece" take on GTA, with all the comedy and fun removed. From everything I've read of the game that's exactly what it is, except with bonus bugs and glitches (which provide some comedy, but not intentionally).
I hate period pieces, have no interest in GTA, and I hate broken games. But some people like all three, so by their standards, "Ass" as in "Creed" is a 10 out of 10.
There are some fanboys loyal to this game just because they think Jade is the only beautiful girl in the world that may pork them (Bill Haley), but others like Athiestism actually think the game is fun.
I can't relate with either. But the only thing worse than a fanboy is an anti-fanboy, so I'll just be happy that some human beings are getting enjoyment from a video game, regardless of it's quality.
The more happy gamers the better, right?
Apologies for a few comments in Rev's review, but when I hear numerous people tell me they had fun with the game despite it's repetitiveness, and Rev has a history of "game-hating" (Prilight Twincess), I have reason to take his review with a grain of salt. Now that I've seen multiple criticisms, I realize that while he's still the extreme, maybe he does have a point on some level.
Also, am I the only one who thinks that Christ Kohler and Aaron Linde could be brothers?
but for me it is a fun game
i love it
yes it definitly gets repetitive but so has every other game we have ever played
halo 3: run and gun
bioshock is a breath of fresh air but after you get some of the plasmids its the same thing thing shoot people and use the plasmids
almost every game is repetitive it just depends on whether us as the gamers can handle and have fun with the repetitiveness (i dont kno if thats a word) of the game
and im not loyal to ubisoft i just think it is a really fun game
and if other people dont like it thats perfectly fine with me
everyone has different tastes in games
just because someone gave it a bad review doesnt mean that im never going to touch it
I certainly don't think that anyone should lower their standards for gaming to enjoy this, or any other game, but keep in mind that more people are mad a AC not jut for being mediocre, but because that pretty girl promised you it wouldn't be.
There are many, many young and attractive producers in this industry, all who make popular games, and the only difference between them and Jade Raymond is that you don't know who they are. Their respective companies have not decided to put them out in the public to promote their product. And while this is just a matter of apples and oranges, it makes you -- the consumer -- judge the game on its own merits.
Kinda like you should be doing. And, I know that hating on this game is all "the rage" right now, but each and every single gamer I know, including my roommate, my friends, and the forty gamers I work with at the game company I work for, think that AC is pretty awesome.
But are they wrong and you're right? Vice Versa, maybe? Who knows, it's all subjective. All I know is that I can easily say that they've judged the game based on their experience with, and not on some sort of preconceived notion based on internet PR.
If you're judging the game on that concept then congrats, you're just part of the crowd right now. If you're judging the game based on you hands-on playtime, without any care to all the blow back that this game is getting on the 'nets, then feel free to say whatever you want about it. You've earned it.
But don't act out because you're mad you fell for one of the oldest PR tricks in the world. It happens. Move on. Maybe everyone should take a second look at this game minus all th hyper and PR blunders, and just look at it for what it is, ya know? Maybe just do a STFUAJPG?
If it is still as bad as you say, then stand by that decision. If, for some reason, you've find that you've been swayed by this PR debacle and everybody acting like children, then you just may find a game worth playing.
Stupid is as stupid does.
There are people out there who think their opinion is the only one that matters and that they are correct no matter how well you prove your point. I've tried to find a word that describes them and nothing seems to really fit, so I'll call them stupid.
The stupids are normally people that don't get the acceptance or gratification that they think they deserve. Another characteristic of a stupid is that they truely believe they are right no matter what someone says. They will defend that 2+2=5 no matter what you do to prove them wrong. I'm not sure if anyone has nailed exactly why they do this. Some might do it for the sake of playing devils advocate, some maybe for a thrill they don't get in their real lives, basically being the oposite of what they really are. If you are a sheep in real life you are a wolf online. If you ask me they lack a more tangible cause to believe in. I'm not saying offering your opinion on a video game online isn't tangible in some way, but something is missing or lacking in their real lives that makes them act like this. I just take comfort in the solice that I've got things pretty good right now, I've got my health, a good job, a new love interest, and that I can consider myself not a stupid.
slam ass creed all you want, but at least it didn't feed the masses the same old crap with shinier graphics.
Then I did all the citizen quests for the first real district... After that, it all went downhill. Started playing early Mass Effect instead, then I saw AC again at a mate's last week and I really couldn't understand what I loved about it anymore. A nice, entertaining game gets a 7 from me unless it really pisses me off.
I'd give AC a 7 right now, but people that have invested so much time getting pumped for this game will just defend their energy investment, I guess. The same will happen when Killzone 2 comes out :P
Calm down! The male developers get shit talked to. I swear! Everytime a woman gets into a big position, you females have to make it seem like its the best thing ever and that they are as innocent as a child. Give me a break!
And why exactly not? Garry's mod seems pretty damn popular, and little big planet is garnering a lot of(well deserved) attention. The main distinction between gaming and other art/entertainment is interactivity, and giving a user control over how they play is about the ultimate in that. I don't think it's fair to criticise a game for not holding your hand the whole time while telling you the correct way to enjoy it.
The most similar game to AC I've played, and I'm surprised I've never read anyone else mention the likeness, is crackdown. In crackdown, you have only one objective; infiltrate gang HQs and take out the boss. Sure, there's other stuff to do, but who wants to go searching for a hundred fucking hidden orbs, am I right? My point is, crackdown was extremely fun, and I'm sure most of you will agree with that. The difference between AC and crackdown is that while AC was hyped to high heaven, crackdown was just the halo 3 beta pack-in, so enjoyment gleamed from it was serendipitous.
Also, I think kohler's review is completely fair. Those flaws mentioned are present in abundance, but the entire package as a whole was fun enough for me to consider it an awesome game. Also, I think mentioning jade raymond as a pro/con for this game should be considered some kind of goodwin variant. Yes, she's hot. No, that has no bearing on the game.
Also, inre bioshock: gameplay-wise, it really doesn't have shit on deus ex(a game that preceded it by over 7 years). There was virtually no variety of play, just shooting splicer clones over, and over, and over again with the odd(identical) big daddy fight, or tubehack puzzle. Plasmids were more of a novelty than anything else, as they were only ever situationally semi-useful, and tonics were a joke. Don't get me wrong, I love bioshock, I'm just illustrating the point that it's really easy to criticise a game if all you're trying to do is pick it apart.
Again, most games are "repetitive" in that they establish a core gameplay schema which drives the experience. But Assassin's Creed and Crackdown are exceptional in that they make no efforts to dress up the tasks to refresh the player.
I think I've figured out the cause of this disagreement though. The advocates think the criticisers are saying the game is shit and not worth playing, while the criticisers think the advocates are saying the game is perfect and everyone should be forced to love it at gunpoint. I imagine the fact of the matter is that complaining about it doesn't mean you hate it, and defending it doesn't mean you think it's the second coming. My only reason for being a vocal proponent for AC is because I don't want people to see the tempestuous dirge negative comments about it here at dtoid and just assume it's not worth their time. At very, very, ultimate uber-worst, the game is still at least a rental, because it's unique enough that I think everyone with any slight interest should try it out.
you sound like you know a lot of stuff, but you just put them in the wrong sense every time. talking about fear other people have of having a game "not holding your hand" is completely out of context.
no one has mentioned crackdown?! almost every major site has mentioned crackdown as a likeness to ac.
sorry, i just... have never in my life disagreed with a person more than this. but keep it up man, you're comments are interesting, they're just inaccurate
For example, Shadow of the Colossus:
1. Go to temple.
2. Sit through a cut scene where a booming voice tells you which colossus you are supposed to kill.
3. Ride horse to Colossus.
4. Climb Colossus and stab.
5. Repeat
SotC only had 5 steps compared to Rev's list of Assassin's 18 steps, scientifically that proves that SotC is more repetitive and therefore not as good of a game as Assassin's Creed.
Of course I'm being slightly facetious, we all know SotC is a great game because of the emotions it invokes (true love between a horse and his boy and a comatose woman), not because of the variety of game play. Still it seems Rev purposefully exaggerates his low score to offset over hype.
Dragging back to the repetitiveness issue(I know, sorry) I think, like gabe said, if you play the game as if it's a chore, you won't find any fun at all. You could actually just do the quickest and easiest investigations, and then just storm your target's location with sword swinging rampantly, but it'd be shit. A lot of the fun I have with is by sneaking around, even when it's not necessarily the easiest thing to do, and doing cool executions, then pegging it when the guards give chase even though I could kill them all in a fair fight pretty easily. It is a design flaw that playing this way has no in-game benefit whatsoever, but it's still the only way I'd play it.
->xper: It think "self-important" would be more apt than "pretentious", but I get the gist. But goddamnit, I can't help it if I'm better than everyone else!
Also, Linde, why is your new avatar so much sexier than your previous one?
glitches are actually good entertainment
take the grand theft auto series, the codes almost let you break the game and allowed for some seriously weird glitches to happen.
but that's one of the things i actually really liked about the game. maybe because there seems that there's always more to discover.
although a glory hole isn't a great discovery, something like the two altair's is interesting.
but I rectum.
they gave me Naruto Rise of a Ninja (AWSUMZ) and if i remember correctly, they gave me 2 Prince of Persias that were godly (Warrior Within was between ok). I like Montreal
so..what companies, can i love without receiving a beating, mr Linde?
I really, really want the next Assassin's Creed to be the kind of game I'd die to play. I want UbiSoft to make that game. Giving any company a pass on serious flaws is a fine way to ensure that they keep making the same mistakes.