Assassin's Creed (Xbox 360 reviewed, PlayStation 3)
Developed by UbiSoft Montreal
Release Date: November 14, 2007
Assassin's Creed is a disappointing, repetitive game filled with horrendously long and unnecessary cut scenes, a boring plot, tedious chores, and significant difficulty problems -- it's a game with a few great ideas but absolutely no idea how to implement them.
Once you get past all that, however, there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to have a hell of a fun time with it.
First off, the graphics look good on the 360. I can't speak for the PS3 version, but I only experienced one instance of texture popping throughout my entire playtime. I did experience a really weird, really significant framerate drop which lasted for about five minutes, but once the framerate returned to normal I never experienced it again. Generally, the character models look good, the lighting is great, and the draw distance is damned spectacular. The animations also look stunning, but more on that later.
Secondly, I just want to say a few things about the storyline. I've heard a lot of complaints -- from reviewers and gamers alike -- that Creed's main "twist" is spoiled too early in the game. I honestly don't know what the hell these people are complaining about. Yes, at the very beginning of the game, you find out that Altair's adventures are really just being relived through genetic memory and that the real protagonist is a 30 year old white male living in the near future. You quite literally find this out before even attempting your first mission, so I can't imagine why anyone would complain that Creed somehow "spoils" anything too soon. Newsflash: if a game tells you something within two minutes of starting up, that's not a twist -- that's the basis of the goddamned plot.
And, really, it's a pretty interesting plot. In theory. Since you're essentially playing a character within a character, Creed has some interesting opportunities to go totally meta and talk about what it is to be a gamer in a cyberpunkish sort of way. Unfortunately, it forgoes these philosophical possibilities for a silly Knights Templar Conspiracy Plot and some window dressing about The Nature of Free Will. None of it really adds up to anything, even though you'll spend a friggin' agonizing amount of time within unskippable, more-or-less-noninteractive cut scenes.

I'm not a big fan of cut scenes in general, but I can almost always find the patience to sit through them if I'm being told important information, or if the story is interesting enough. Creed's numerous, protracted cut scenes, however, are filled to the brim with dull characters, boring dialogue, and heaps upon heaps upon heaps upon goddamn heaps of exposition. Characters tell other characters exactly what they're feeling, and what they're going to do, and how. It's impossible to give a rat's ass because it's all delivered so dryly. Even after assassinating a mark, the player has to sit through a two to three minute cut scene as they give their valediction. It kills the pace of the game, and it's totally unnecessary.
When I say "pace," though, it brings to mind my biggest complaint with Assassin's Creed: it's awfully repetitive. You only have nine targets to kill throughout the course of the game, but due to the time-consuming and tedious tasks you have to go through before every assassination, the game somehow runs about 15 to 20 hours at the minimum. Throughout the entire game, you will repeat the following sequence of events over and over:
1. Get to the town's nearby assassin bureau
2. Sit through a cut scene where you are told pretty much nothing about the guy you're about to kill
3. Go to a really high area of the city and update your map
4/5/6. Investigate your target by completing at least three info-gathering tasks: eavesdrop on a conversation, or perform a time-sensitive task for an informant, or pickpocket someone, or beat information out of someone peripherally connected to your mark.
7. Return to the assassin bureau
8. Sit through a cut scene where you are told where you'll find and kill your target
9. Go find your target
10. Sit through a cut scene which shows your target doing something really douchebaggy and evil
11. Kill your target
12. Sit through a cut scene where the target expresses no remorse whatsoever
13. Automatically head back to the Assassin's Guild headquarters
14. Sit through a cut scene where the Guild leader talks about your progress for way too damn long
15. Leave the Guild headquarters
16. Head to a new town
17. Sit through a cut scene in the real world where the hero stands around and complains while Kristen Bell acts concerned for about five minutes
18. Repeat
Hopefully, one can see how this might get really, really repetitive. The three investigation tasks you have to complete prior to every assassination are almost offensively menial and tedious: I was reminded of Spider-Man 2 for the PS2, where the player had to run around collecting stray balloons and scolding angry drivers before getting to the real action.
Now, it might sound like I'm being dismissive to the game's structure; that, in breaking it down into a simple step-by-step process, I'm oversimplifying. Trust me, though, I'm not: even as you're playing it, the game feels horrendously formulaic and repetitive to the point that by the time you've killed your third target, you feel like you know exactly what the rest of the game will be like. And you'd be right, too; save for one or two interesting assassination missions at the end, the entire game follows the above formula exactly. There is literally no deviation from this formula at any point throughout the game. After six or seven hours of playing, you'll become woefully aware of this fact.
Before those six or seven hours are up, however, Assassin's Creed will feel like one of the most fun games to come out this year -- thanks entirely to the fighting and freerunning mechanics. The fighting system is very rhythm and timing based: it's not about hacking and slashing as fast or as hard as you can, but in carefully timing your attacks to expose your enemies' weaknesses. Once you get the counterattack ability (after the third assassination, I believe), Altair can instakill any enemy so long as he counters them at the right moment. The counterattack animations are truly incredible: Altair spins, dodges, weaves, and strikes with a fluidity I've never before seen.
Indeed, once I got the hang of countering and attacking, and once I found myself in fights with up to six or seven guards at one time, I was stringing together counters and offensive slashes to create a goddamned ballet of death and destruction. I'm not at all exaggerating when I say that Assassin's Creed contains the single most visually rewarding melee combat system ever implemented. I found myself picking fights with guards just so I could experience the pleasure of countering their attacks and viciously finishing them off with well-timed sword blows. Granted, the sword fighting gets way too easy after you get the hang of it: as you might see in an old-school Kung Fu flick, Altair can be surrounded by ten or fifteen guys at a time, but they'll only attack one at a time, making a fight against three opponents just as easy or hard as a fight against twenty. I would have really liked to see some more aggressive enemy AI in the sword fighting. Still, though, the fighting is enjoyable.

Altair's freerunning ability is similarly fun and lovely to look at. By holding down the right trigger (which changes Altair's actions from low-profile to high-profile) and the "legs" button (A), Altair will automatically run and jump and climb anything he comes across with remarkable fluidity. The player doesn't have to time button presses to jump -- if that were the case, Creed would be difficult to the point of unplayability -- but merely aim Altair's line of movement, guiding him to the next big structure or handhold.
UbiSoft said that Altair could climb any aspect of the environment which juts out more than two centimeters, and they weren't joking. The game world becomes Altair's playground as the player climbs buildings, searching for handholds and shimmying across rooftops. Again, manipulating the environment really just comes down to holding a couple of buttons and using the joystick to direct Altair's hands and feet as he reaches for the next ledge or handhold. It looks incredible and feels immensely rewarding.
These two mechanics -- the freerunning and the combat -- make Assassin's Creed a very, very enjoyable action game. It's just a shame that Assassin's Creed doesn't quite know that it's an action game.
For some reason or another, many of the game's core mechanics (a visibility indicator, a hiding system) center around the concept of stealth when, really, stealth is neither an enjoyable nor a viable option for any of the assassinations. If guards catch a glimpse of Altair and go into alert mode (which they will, frequently), it's really no trouble just to kill the guards in a swordfight and hide in a haystack until the alert dies down. It's too easy to be spotted, and even easier to get rid of an alert, so why bother trying to be stealthy at all? Why even bother to run away?
It's really rather irritating: the crowd AI and the city geography both lend themselves to some intense, challenging chase sequences, but the chases themselves never get desperate or difficult enough to make fleeing a viable option. Altair can take way too many blows with a sword before he dies, so he's got literally no reason to run away (which, if this were a true stealth game, should have been the player's first instinct).
Assassin's Creed is a disappointment, don't get me wrong. It's repetitive and self-contradictory, and a hell of a chore at times. But, even so, it contains some truly incredible moments of gameplay due to its fighting and freerunning mechanics. They aren't implemented in the best way or even used to their full potential, but it's still absurdly fun to get into a sword fight with a dozen baddies and come through unscathed, or to seamlessly run and jump and climb across the Jerusalem landscape. If you go into Assassin's Creed with the knowledge that it's a disappointing exercise in repetition, you'll actually have much more fun: once you realize that the sword fighting and freerunning represent the only real fun you'll experience, you'll come to appreciate them that much more.
In conclusion: lower your expectations, don't play it for more than three hours at a time, and don't pay more than nine bucks to get a hold of it. Assassin's Creed is an above average game ... but just barely.
Score: 5.5
Wow.
Nice review!
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to the score it was given. This game is far better than a 5.5.
Well, I have to completely agree with the good Reverend in that the game is repetitious and the process of missions gets old fast. But the free running and combat are so good, and both of them dont get old. I personally can look past the repetition of the game because I have so much fun climbing and free running through cities. Once I got to the first city in the game, I spent an hour just running around and climbing shit. It was, in a word, EPIC.
Now I think number scores are bullshit and worthless, but come on Rev. It doesnt deserve a 5.5. If I HAD to give it a number score, it would be a 7. The free running and combat are a huge plus, but the missions are old hat after the first one.
Before I read this this, I just want to say,
That I wanted to see your view on this and pick it apart and not say the "art" justifies the high scores its been getting.
This game was a dissapointment
wow. good review.
so glad i didn't preorder.
Very nice review. Too bad I already bought the game.
I could take 'im.
dammit dude i wanted so badly for this game to be incredible
Wow, everyone overrates games so Destructoid underrates them. I'm sorry but that doesn't even things out.
This review, the Twilight Princess review, and Nex's Call of Duty review are all crap. Aaron Linde does a great job though. Please Aaron, don't let anyone else do reviews anymore.
Why isn't Destructoid ever listed on metacritic?
nice review rev, but barely above average? er, have you looked at the release lists.
I think you give too much credit to the "average game"
just sayin.
Wow, rev, you totally just assassinated their creeds. Hearing all this I'm actually glad this one's a fizzler; I hardly need another huge sandbox game with COD4, Mario Galaxy and Mass Effect begging for my time.
AgentMOO: I think saying that you don't want another good game is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Why would you want one less great game on this Earth just because a lot of other good ones are coming out? You do realize you have your entire life to play these and there will be future gaming droughts. I know you were probably "just saying" it, but it sounded really ignorant.
ShadowXOR, I think you're missing the point. Our reviews aren't meant to be read just so folks can see if our arbitrary numerical value matches up with our readers -- we review a game to give our take on it. Disagreement doesn't make Nex or Anthony bad reviewers.
winojesus:
I mean average in sense of objective quality, not in relation to other games.
I really need to expand my vocabulary and find a word which actually MEANS "in a sense of objective quality".
I guess there's just no pleasing Rev. Anthony. Granted, I haven't played my copy yet, but ignoring the reviewers, everything I'm hearing from this game is mostly positive, be it from Atheistium or Penny Arcade's Gabe. I don't want to make any declarations like "I'm never reading your reviews again," but considering how radical your scores in the past have been compared to the actual quality of a game, I'll be taking them with a bag of salt.
I'm still getting this in a month or so and will make my mind up for myself, but I really, really doubt it is a 5.5.
Not really surprised at this review, the only reason why people like this game is cause Jade's boobs told them that it was awesome.
Aaron Linde: So you guys go for the "personal" review rather than the "objective" review? If that is the case then the scores definitely make more sense, but it would definitely make me pass on all future Destructoid reviews.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one reminded of Spiderman 2. Locomotion is great fun. I can spend time just leaping around the city. And I agree on the stealth issue. Couldn't they talk to the Splinter Cell guys to learn how to use some real stealth and not just "blend in with convenient groups of monks" stealth.
Also, Rev and fellow Dtoid friends who have already picked this up, is there only one way to kill the marks, or am I just screwing it up? It seems like it goes:
1. Enter area
2. Try to kill the guy stealthily, which doesn't work because they spot you like magic
3. Get into a big brawl with everybody and kill them all / chase the jerk though the city
4. Cheese it.
Has anyone actually taken down the mark and gotten out without someone sounding the alarm immediately?
Necros:
You tend to make the "bag of salt" statement nearly everytime I give anything a sub-6 score. I expect nothing less from you.
And as a follow-up: yes, scores are generally taken to mean much more than they should, but saying the game is only worth $9 seems rather extreme.
very good review... it basically echoes all my feeling from playing the game
I automatically stopped reading your review, and therefore giving any credit to it, when upon reaching paragraph 4 you started spoiling history details in a completely unnecessary way.
Way to go!
what you get with a woman exec producer.
What? Dude, no review is "objective" -- every reviewer brings with him or her their own set of perspectives and personal preferences for any game they review. Read the text -- we don't often resort to "I just didn't like this, it didn't feel right". We justify our claims of a game's shortcomings the same as its successes.
You're not taking issue with the review, you're taking issue with the score. The score doesn't matter. Read the review. Pretend the score doesn't exist. :D
ASSASSINS CREED IS A COCK TEASE! like Jade.
The scores that Rev and I gave for Sam and Max were very comparable, but I'm hardly a controversial (or even outspoken) reviewer/Dtoid writer. I haven't played AC, nor have I read the review (I'm in class), but I have never disagreed with Rev in any of his other reviews. I still want to play AC if only to experience what it does do well, even if it's not all I hoped it would be.
ShadowOXR:
I certainly try to go for the objective. Your complaint with our reviews -- and indeed, the complaints of most people who saw I or Nex or Aaron score things too low -- will be addressed in an upcoming review manifesto, but the long and short of it is that we're trying to use the ENTIRE 1-10 scale where most other gaming outlets reserve 7-10 for anything even remotely pleasing and leave 6 or below to crap bargain bin titles.
Trev:
I got the impression that there was actually some clever, intensely intricate way of silently taking out a target that Jade Raymond had locked in the back of her brain, but I sure as hell never saw it or needed to. I followed the exact steps you described for every single assassination, partly because, as you said, the guards and marks are goddamn psychic and partly because I never felt like I actually NEEDED to be stealthy once I got good enough with the fighting system.
Necros:
Why? Nine bucks will allow you to rent the game from Blockbuster for about a month ("restocking" fee notwithstanding). I'm not trying to literally put a dollar value on the game, but there's no reason to spend 60 bucks on it when you can get the same amount of enjoyment from a rental.
s'cool rev.
to be honest i was just being a pedant.
and a dick.
Harkonnen:
Telling you the intro to a game is not a spoiler. That's why it's the beginning of the game.
personally i am enjoying it :-p
@ Trev:
Ubisoft Montreal made the PC/Mac/Xbox/GBA versions of the original Splinter Cell and the single-player portion of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. So, if the stealth gameplay sucks in Assassin's Creed they have no excuses.
Aaron Linde: Well what I'm saying is that for example, Smash Bros. Melee is a fantastic game loved by many with most scores in the 9.0+ range.
I agree with that score objectively. However on a personal level I felt the game played very poorly and would have given it maybe a 6.5. It had plenty of content but I didn't like the core gameplay mechanics. No review is TRULY objective, but you can sure as hell strive for it.
Nice review, I'm also glad I wasn't a sucker who pre-ordered the game... Let alone the "special" edition where you get an Assassin's Creed doll
I actually enjoyed the cut scenes after you killed a target. And i also believe the game woulb be a little empty without them.
Reverend Anthony: I DO agree with you if you are completely revamping the ten-point scale. I thought you were using it in the same way that GameSpot/IGN use the ten-point scale. It takes a REALLY bad game to get a 5.5 from either of those sites, I think that review manifesto would really help to clear things up.
Eh I enjoyed what I played, doesn't live up to the hype but is still really fun and the climbing elements sort of becomes a why the hell isn't this in all games element like the cover system. Also if I mess up the stealthy kill I usually let them kill me and try again, it makes you feel like a total badass when you get it right even if it does take a couple times. That said it should have a load last checkpoint or maybe I'm just missing it?
Damn, I was hoping it'd be good. I'll prolly get it anyway.
I'm still getting it, I've been waiting for another Aladdin game!
I would disagree with the review, but I couldnt read the entire thing because you started dropping spoilers like no other.
Also
@Linde
It may be true that reviewers bring their own perspectives with them when they approach a game (or any sort of medium), but its their job to try, to the best of their abilities, to put aside those biases and actually look at what their reviewing objectively. That's why it's a professional review. If I wanted biased talk about games I'd head to the c-blogs or some forums. But I look to main page reviews to be of a higher quality.
When a reviewer falls back on his preferences and prejudices the review itself becomes slanted in an unnecessary way, and that is what leads to a poor review.
Like Rev said, this'll be addressed in the upcoming reviews manifesto, but as Big Angry Review Editor Bear, let me make one thing clear: we're not telling you how you should feel, nor are we suggesting that if you disagree with our arbitrary numerical value, you are somehow wrong. We're illustrating our own views on the game in the hope that those looking for a sense of its quality who tend to agree with our views as gamers will have another opinion to add to the pile before they make the purchase. That's what reviews are for.
There are plenty of reviewers in EGM, Game Informer, and other magazines that I often disagree with. Does that make them shitty reviewers? Fuck no. It means we have a difference of opinion. How such differences become unforgivable cock-stomping transgressions when they happen on the internet never fails to surprise me.
I still think that, factoring in the multiplayer, Nex's rating of "Rent it!" for Call of Duty 4 is flatout bat-shit insane.
Review manifesto couldn't come soon enough, and really if it was already out you could have saved yourself a lot of agony.
Shutdown, I agree, and that's what we work to do. But the idea of an "objective" review makes me laugh, because it's a practical impossibility. Yes, you do the best you can. But our opinions are informed by are backgrounds as gamers, and everybody's different.
Bah, confound it. I'm writing the manifesto as we speak, so y'all stay tuned and try not to get too upset over this terrible, awful, horrible thing that Anthony has done to any of you (and any of your pets) before you get an idea of where we're coming from, ja?
Also, if you guys want everyone to not concentrate on the score so much why don't you blaze some new trails and just create scoreless reviews?
I thoroughly am enjoying Assassins Creed right now, with all the climbing and blending, and pushing through crowds. The stuff you do is really fun. It is repetitive but, I thinks its awesome! Guess its a matter of opinion. HOLLA!
@ Rev
Have I really talked about a bag of salt before? Could have sworn that's the first time I used that one. ^_^;
I'm not against a sub-6 score, and I know you've been dead-on for games like Stranglehold and Manhunt 2. I just think that your perception of the "average" game is generally a little too high, and if you're doing the review, I should expect it to deviate from what I actually find fun. Again, I haven't played my copy yet, so I can't comment on this game directly, but to use another low-scoring game of yours as an example, I completely disagreed with your assessment of Twilight Princess after I completely my playthrough.
And as for the $9 argument: technically, Bioshock could be completed on a rental. So could Resident Evil 4. I know where you're coming from with saying the game isn't a $60 game (since I've waited for some games to drop to the $10 range before buying them), but as someone who never rents games, $9 for a title that many people I know are enjoying a lot seems rather low.
Sorry for the possible incoherency of this comment, I was writing it in the middle of something else.
"Why isn't Destructoid ever listed on metacritic?" - LOL
I have disagree'd with most of Rev Ant's reviews, and though i haven't played this game yet I'm going to disagree again.
I realize you guys are taking the number system as 10 perfect 5 is playable, and even he says it's just BARELY above average, that must be where that .5 comes into play. The mere fact of how much they can fit into this game, including all the different mechanics and massive city, gives this game a more deserving score.
While it looks beautiful, has good mechanics, and a wide free roaming city, you cannot simply slash the score in half because it gets repetitive. Even if you think think the plot is trash, that may just be personal tastes, so guys please don't lash out at people if they take your opinion of the plot with 'a bag of salt'.
I mean, when GTA came out, it was much the same, only it had new things we've never seen before, and you could kill hookers. Instant gold.
Some people thought Bioshock had a terrible plot/ending, not to mention the repetitive hacking of the bots, but it looked gorgeous. It the plot and gameplay was dumbed down for that game, could it have recieved a 5.5 as well, instead of Editorial's Choice?
I'm going with wat Necros said. I highly disagreed with your review of The Darkness (which, while not an extravegant game, deserved more than a 4.5), and even though I don't have Assassin's Creed yet, I'm going to take this review with some doubt.
Sounds like a super awesome rental. Great review!
Rev, personally, telling me anything I don't need to know is a spoiler. And I don't care if it's in the intro or you are giving away the freaking whole story and the sequel's one as well. I seriously disrespect people who are not able to clamp their mouths shut when it comes to history details, both when it comes to reviewing a game on a highly popular blog, or just telling me about the movie they saw in FX (you're bound to get useless crap anyway) last night.
And it's not just you, I stopped reading Gamespot's review and watching their video-review at the same point for the same exact reason whilst, to exemplify a different way of doing things, GameTrailer's video review was nice to watch and didn't make me feel like it was threatining my fun. You did. You even told that you *considered* that it was not such a big thing, even though you had heard a lot of complaints. Man, you heard a lot of complaints, and still go on with it? Excuse me if I don't feel particularly happy about it.
@ Linde
Can you please get rid of the .1 increment option? It's completely ridiculous, trying to asses the difference between an 8.6 and an 8.7. .5 increments are pushing it but reasonable, in my opinion.
@linde
I agree that a completely objective review is laughable. I still think its important to emphasize putting biases aside though, and I'm fine with any reviewer as long as they make an attempt to do so.
@ Snaileb
You've summed up what I couldn't put into words because of my current exhaustion. Agreed.
Why the fuck does 5.5 have to be a horrible review anyway? 5.5 is mediocre, mean buy something else if you can. If ya can't heres a diversion. This isnt fucking grade school.
Personally I feel that Rev has the same views on games as I do and overall I agree with him. This game is a letdown at best and junk at worst. The "twist" is paper thin and is really just pointless. It didn't add anything important to the game and felt like more of a "got cha!"
This game dissappoints because like so many so called 'next gen' games, they look the part and raiise our expectations, their sophisticated looks seduce us in to thinking that the interaction within that world will match the detailed graphics.
Basically we assume that gameplay will be of the same level as the visuals. The cold hard truth is that all these games feature game mechanics which we were playing over a decade ago - we have a huge crowd to walk thorugh, yet we can't properly interact with that crowd - is this any different to breifly interacting with a background of a 2D fighter from the early 90's ?
These types of games are made by very talented visual designers and mediocre game designers, Ubisoft, along with many other game developers are actually more interested in making CG movies. They should just stop the pretence and go and make feature length CG animations, then they wouldn't have to worry about tacking a game onto the end.
I'm going with wat Necros said. I highly disagreed with your review of The Darkness (which, while not an extravegant game, deserved more than a 4.5), and even though I don't have Assassin's Creed yet, I'm going to take this review with some doubt.
I hope Destructoid isn't taking the GameSpot path of posting "shock" reviews to generate traffic.
I don't really think so but I just wanted to throw that out there to piss people off.
But yeah, I disagree with pretty much every review this guy has written but the "manifesto" would at least help slightly.
And as I said before, a "Rent it!" for Call of Duty 4 is just factually wrong...
well, my quick-snap review after playing about 2 hours last night would be an 8.5-9.0
however, you said you don't really understand how repetitive it actually is until about 7-8 hours in, so we'll see what happens.
oh, and i like the cutscenes (so far).
ShadowXOR:
Originally a lot of us actually wanted to do that, but it's got a lot of problems from a practical point of view (we can't get on Metacritic or any other score-aggregate site, game companies are less likely to send us advanced stuff if we don't give them a numerical grade in return, etc).
Personally, I'd definitely prefer reviewing games without tacking on a score afterward. It's just not the most viable strategy at this stage of the game.
Haven't played the game, so i can't compare your review's accuracy to Nex's COD4 review/hallucination but it is written well enough!
Don't believe the moody cellos!
Actually if you already have the game and you really enjoy it and think it deserves a 10, why do you get mad whenever the game gets a 5.5? You already have the game! If you like it, you like it! Personally I think reviewers should be a little more focused on bringing out a game's problems and issues, than constantly giving it praise throughout their review.
all i needed to read...
otherwise the review score needs more significant digits, about 4 more, for me to get past the pretty pictures and read the review.
Harkonnen:
In a review, you need to address all aspects of the game, from gameplay to plot, to judge if it's worth a purchase. You do need to hear about the details of the plot, because of how big a part it plays in the game, its pacing, and its structure.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that the plot details which constitute the fourth paragraph represent literally the first