Assassin's Creed - New Interview
- Thread starter scooby_dooby
- Start date
I've actually come to like the GT reviews myself, although I think GT scores it a bit higher (9.1) than his dialog seems to merit. I really want to just try this game out for the crowd aspect.
iceberg187
Regular
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8562866&postcount=1036
What's going on here?
All I said is what was posted by someone who works for Ubisoft who got to see both versions side by side 1 month ago. He didn't think (or had been told, I have no idea) that they'd be able to get the PS3 version to be as smooth (not that it's perfect) as the 360 time during that time. I just translated his post from my forum and put it here.
I'd have posted the exact same way if it was the 360 version that was less smooth. Why wouldn't I? I'm definitely not claiming to be unbiased, I have a long history with the Xbox side of stuff after all, but I sure don't hate the PS3 either.
I get the impression from that thread that he is also a big 360 fanboy.
Even if he noticed something where the PS3 was "better" than 360, he wouldn't mention it.
Would anyone believe me if I made a video showing the PS3 version was better? I don't think so
Now apparently the Gamespot review says that the PS3 version has a slightly better framerate, and the IGN review which originally had comments about framerate issues with the PS3 version has been edited. Some interesting stuff there! Maybe something with early review builds being superceded?
Now apparently the Gamespot review says that the PS3 version has a slightly better framerate, and the IGN review which originally had comments about framerate issues with the PS3 version has been edited. Some interesting stuff there! Maybe something with early review builds being superceded?
EDIT: Yep, I can confirm the edit. I still had the old version open, which did point out PS3 framerate issues, then I hit refresh and those comments were gone!
Yes but the IGN comments remain in their Insider only video comparison. The video also clearly shows the PS3 slowing down dramatically, while the 360 version does not. I'm guessing they just want fuel to fire up more subscriptions
djskribbles
Legend
very interesting indeed that IGN edited that out... i didn't even notice that!
also BlimBlim never mentioned anything regarding the framerate. he did post that someone from UBI posted earlier in development that the PS3 version was slightly lagging behind as far as framerate goes and he didn't think they would get it up to speed by release. regardless, i doubt the PS3 version is that bad. BlimBlim did mention the PS3 version has noticeably more tearing but its not bad by any means. as for the color/contrast differences, i'm guessing thats (as usual) a difference in outputs. i think the majority of gamers out there are unaware of the fact that you need to calibrate your TV's for each device or even cable output type. thats why PS3 videos usually appear brighter and less saturated. i recall seeing an article comparing the 360 using component and HDMI, and the HDMI version seemed brighter and less saturated.
I never had much confidence in Ubisoft, so naturally, I wasn't expecting much of AC. Sure, the concept seemed cool and all that, but from the videos I saw, I wasn't convinced the gameplay mechanics made for a game that would grab my interest much. It's a shame that such a high profile game ends up disappointing though.
Wait for the reputed non platform religious Beyond3d posters to let us know what is really going on...
Right now this game moved back on the shelf for me and R&C moved forward again...
Drakes, R&C, Creed.
Unless i hear something else here
djskribbles
Legend
people have said that the framerate is slightly more stable on PS3 in the earlier missions (which is why people are thinking GS said the framerate is more stable in their review). could it be that the framerate is better on PS3 at times and better on 360 at times?Yes but the IGN comments remain in their Insider only video comparison. The video also clearly shows the PS3 slowing down dramatically, while the 360 version does not. I'm guessing they just want fuel to fire up more subscriptions
Could be. I'm the one who suggested it here.
We need someone with both copies to lay down the facts.I'm actually really frustrated at the reviews being so all over the shop. It can't be that hard to agree on issues which should be simple... sure there are always differences of opinion, but from Gamespot's "must not miss title, you'll remember it forever" to Eurogamer's "forgettable, hopefully they fix it in the sequel" type responses, something really is lost along the way
Sounds like they did a by the numbers UBIsoft multiplatform review.
eg. it's by UBI so the 360 version must be better.
The fact they have taken it out proves something.
The short quote I read about the 1up review was that they didn't like that the missions all seemed to follow the same pattern of how to carry out an assassination.
7.9 at Team Xbox, quote. http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/35370/Assassins-Creed-Review-at-TeamXbox-7-9
I preordered mine last week. I am hoping I actually enjoy the game more then what these scores may suggest. I've not been a console gamer for the past 10 to 12 years so maybe I won't have as high a standard. But if I set here & think about the scores they are actually still fairly high.
7/10 at 1up, quote. http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/35367/Assassins-Creed-Gets-a-7-10-at-1Up
7.9 at Team Xbox, quote. http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/35370/Assassins-Creed-Review-at-TeamXbox-7-9
I preordered mine last week. I am hoping I actually enjoy the game more then what these scores may suggest. I've not been a console gamer for the past 10 to 12 years so maybe I won't have as high a standard. But if I set here & think about the scores they are actually still fairly high.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or 2 different aproaches on how to play the game, one wants to "play" the other wants to be "entertained" ?
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
