Despite having a Metacritic average of 83, Ubisoft is upset that Prince of Persia didn't get more praise. The game did some new things, and signalled a change from the old PoP trilogy. Instant blowjobs expected!

"For years we've all been reading complaints about sequels and companies churning out carbon copies of proven formulas without focusing on innovation or taking risks," bitches producer Ben Mattes. "Fans, developers and critics alike seemed ravenous for new ideas—new IPs; major innovations—advances in this art-tertainment form we all love. We tried to really embrace this challenge on PoP. We set out to keep a few core fundamentals but to re-imagine everything else, discarding some very well entrenched ideas not only about the brand but also about videogames in general.

"What surprises me is how little these high-level risks seem to be noticed and appreciated as attempts to shake up the industry and push things forward. Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I think perhaps I was expecting a few more virtual pats-on-the-back for our attempts to do something new." 

Mattes commits two cardinal sins here -- first of all, he stomps his feet over not having unanimous praise. An 83 Metacritic score means reviews were generally great, and we need to get out of this awful mindset that anything below 90%, Triple A or 9/10 is terrible. Secondly, he has done what several developers seem to be doing now -- trying a few new ideas and expecting innovation alone to be rewarded. 

I am so sick of the "I" word now. It's not like new ideas are unwelcome, but a game still has be good first and "innovative" second to receive praise. Prince of Persia may or may not be excellent depending on who you are -- but to expect a pat on the back just for being different is almost as cynical as rehashing old ground for a quick and cheap sale.