Assassin's Creed - New Interview

[PARANOiA]

It's a He

Like the Clinton?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?article_id=87432&page=3 7/10

 

[scooby_dooby]

Now Eurogamer too:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

Now Eurogamer too:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=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]

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]

I will be waiting for that demo.

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

 

[Arwin]

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]

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...