[PARANOiA]

Originally Posted by valioso

It's a He

Like the Clinton?

Originally Posted by Mize

Gamespot Review 9.0

I'm soooo confused

Dammit. This is such a yo-yo type game for something that should be straight-forward. This is why reviews exist, not to confuse us.

Personally I trust Eurogamer > Edge > Gamespot > 1up > *. If it's region free I'll pick it up cheap from Play-Asia.

[scooby_dooby]

Here's the Gametrailers video review, 9.1:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/27616.html

[Mize]

some guy on ng is encoding some video that he says shows more tearing on PS3 vs. 360...says it was the same capture hardware so he must have an hdmi 360?

[DJ12]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

Depends who you want to listen too I guess...

Gamespot just gave it a 9/10.

I want to believe it's a good game, I doubt it deserves more than 8, maybe 8.5 as the AI is shocking, most reviewers mention it and it certainly isn't in line with what UBI have been telling us about it whenever they've spoken about the game.

[habbe]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

Well, it seems contrary to most other sources, so it's probably a typo, or the reviewers 360 is on the way out.

Are there any more reviews other than gamespot and Ign that mentions framerate issue on any of the platforms ?

[Mize]

[oops, misread question - delete please ]

[Jesus2006]

Originally Posted by habbe

Are there any more reviews other than gamespot and Ign that mentions framerate issue on any of the platforms ?

None that i know of.

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by habbe

Are there any more reviews other than gamespot and Ign that mentions framerate issue on any of the platforms ?

Not sure, but there were a few rumours (i.e. BlimBlim) regarding the PS3 framerate being lower for a while now.

Who knows, I think the take-home point from both the Gamespot, and GameInformer review are that the visual flaws are extremely minor.

[Arwin]

Now Eurogamer too:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php...d=87432&page=3 7/10

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by Arwin

Now Eurogamer too:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php...d=87432&page=3 7/10

Amazing to see such differening opinions, it almost soudns like they're talking about two completely different games:

Originally Posted by Gamespot

Assassin's Creed will stay with you long after you finish it. Here is one of the most unique gameworlds ever created: beautiful, memorable, and alive. Every crack and crevasse is filled with gorgeous, subtle details, from astounding visual flourishes to overheard cries for help. But it's more than just a world--it's a fun and exciting action game with a ton of stuff to do and places to explore, rounded out with silky-smooth controls and a complex story that will slowly grab you the more you play. Make no mistake: Assassin's Creed is one of the best efforts of the year and a must-own game for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 owners.

Originally Posted by Eurogamer

It's a fitting end to a game that starts off brightly, wriggling elusively as you try and grasp what's going on, delighting in the mechanics and beautiful visuals, before sinking into a pattern that, while fairly gratifying, never evolves and ultimately becomes a bit boring, and quite amazingly repetitive. After each briefing, you travel the same route to the Masyaf border with no way to skip the journey, and it takes five minutes. You will play to the end anyway, I imagine, because it's not very frustrating, it looks nice and the low-level mechanics are engagingly fluid and spectacular to watch. And you certainly want to know what's going on. Or will do, until it stops dazzling to deceive and goes a bit Dan Brown. But while there's no end of potential to the foundations Ubisoft Montreal has set, the game built upon them is ultimately disappointing, and leaves you unfulfilled.

Originally Posted by Gamespot

The ending is confusing, and it blatantly leaves open the possibility of a sequel, but it's a small blemish on an otherwise stirring tale.

Originally Posted by Eurogamer

I don't think I've ever stared at a credits screen in as much disbelief and disappointment.

Originally Posted by Gamespot

Of course, such an authentic world would be meaningless without a lot of fun things to do in it. Thankfully, Assassin's Creed is endlessly entertaining in that it features a fine mix of stealthy exploration, tight platforming, and exciting combat.

Originally Posted by Eurogamer

There's almost no fun to be had just playing with the world.

[deepbrown]

Gamespot say the framerate is better in the ps3 version as well lol.

TBH Eurogamer are at the bottom of my reviewers along with 1up.

[one]

Is it possible to steal horses or kill random pedestrians like another sandbox game?

[XeRo]

I guess for those not wanting to spend 60 on this game, you could check your local Fry's to see if they are doing the $40 deal.

[Cyan]

Originally Posted by Arwin

Now Eurogamer too:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php...d=87432&page=3 7/10

This game has some of the most puzzling and bewildering reviews I've seen to date. I like the concept of the game and the age it's based on, though. Those Middle Age times are quite evocative to me, so I don't mind the reviews that much. If I like the game I think I'd probably buy it

First comparison between both versions here, btw:

http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_7002_en.html

Good evening

[Jaeyden]

This thing is becoming mind boggling. I can get past the criticism's reviewers have had with certain aspects of the game (AI, repetition), but I can't enjoy any game if it has framerate issues. Need some firsthand impressions here boys, anyone lucky enough to get a PS3 copy yet?

[betan]

Originally Posted by Cyan

First comparison between both versions here, btw:

http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_7002_en.html

I wonder why those shots are so bright unlike playfrance's captures.

Anyway if being repetitive is the main problem with the game, Ubisoft could really use a demo to convince people that it's fun.

I will be waiting for that demo.

[XeRo]

Originally Posted by betan

I will be waiting for that demo.

You are going to be waiting for awhile. Ubi said no demo.

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by betan

I wonder why those shots are so bright unlike playfrance's captures.

Anyway if being repetitive is the main problem with the game, Ubisoft could really use a demo to convince people that it's fun.

I will be waiting for that demo.

No kidding. The first thing I did when I saw that was copy it into Gimp and change brightness, contrast, and a little of the color balance so that those were all equal. I don't know what they did to capture those images, but either they're stupid and their settings suck, or they've got an agenda.

[XeRo]

I believe blimblim said they used the same capture hardware. Quick Arwin, B3D elects you to go get AC and give us impressions

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by Arwin

I don't know what they did to capture those images, but either they're stupid and their settings suck, or they've got an agenda.

Same hardware, same default settings, and no agenda.

This has been known for a long time now, PS3 outputs a brighter image than the 360, which usually looks 360 screens look better (darker, deeper, more contrast).

Of course this can be fixed by simply calibrating your TV...

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by XeRo

I believe blimblim said they used the same capture hardware. Quick Arwin, B3D elects you to go get AC and give us impressions

But I want Uncharted, Guitar Hero III and SingStar! And R&C, if I have some spare change! And I'll never have enough time to even play the games I already have (Eye of Judgement, I :heart: you!). And the game doesn't seem like any fun! The more I see of it, the less I'm thrilled.

Of course, I"m curious, but I think I'll like this much better, for less money too, so I'm going to wait until others post impressions. Should be out here this week.

[Jedi2016]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

Same hardware, same default settings, and no agenda.

This has been known for a long time now, PS3 outputs a brighter image than the 360, which usually looks 360 screens look better (darker, deeper, more contrast).

Of course this can be fixed by simply calibrating your TV...

I noticed that on day one when I got my PS3 and calibrated my TV to it. As a result, I generally ignore any comments in reviews or screenshots indicating reduced contrast or brighter image for the PS3. So I'm fairly sure that, on my TV, both versions would look identical in terms of contrast and shading.

I am a bit confused about the flip-flop regarding the framerate, though. One site the 360 is smoother, another says the PS3 is smoother. Do the majority of the reviews indicate one over the other? I wonder if the two aren't simply exactly the same and the reviewers' personal bias towards one system may lead them to "see" something that isn't there. I just did a quick run-through of the Head-to-Head video on IGN, and it appears that both systems have occasional framerate dips and tearing.

[ninzel]

This is what happens when your game doesn't have a multi-trillion dollar marketing budget behind it. You get the normal spectrum of opinions reflecting the fact that everyones taste is different. As it should be.
As opposed to a game like Halo3 where reviewers are practically conditioned to universally love it before it even arrives.
Bottom line,trust your own opinion and if in doubt don't don't give up on it completely just try it with a rental.

[XeRo]

Originally Posted by Jedi2016

snip

I think most reviews were x360. I didn't really see anyone else compare the two versions.

[scooby_dooby]

No, this is a case of the current state of game reviews that value a highly polished experience, over an innovative one.

COD4 for example. No huge marketing budget, but an average of 95%!! How can a game, that is repeating the SAME formula we've seen time in, and time out, really get a 95 average?